PDA

View Full Version : NOAA Report on Global Temperature Rise



Atraveller
2010-Jul-29, 03:02 AM
NOAA released a report yesterday that states:


NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years

State of the Climate (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html)


“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”

korjik
2010-Jul-29, 03:35 AM
And?

Climate changes. Always has, always will.

Trakar
2010-Aug-01, 04:42 PM
And?

Climate changes. Always has, always will.

Is your response to school shootings "everyone dies sooner or later?"

Ari Jokimaki
2010-Aug-01, 04:58 PM
And?

Climate changes. Always has, always will.
And?

Climate change affects the biosphere. Always has, always will. Fast changes are especially nasty ones for the species.

Ken G
2010-Aug-01, 05:20 PM
This single report of course doesn't answer the real issue here, why is the climate changing? But at least this report removes one common objection from the deniers who claim it isn't warming, or that the trends are just the 11-year solar half-cycle.

Larry Jacks
2010-Aug-01, 08:40 PM
But at least this report removes one common objection from the deniers who claim it isn't warming, or that the trends are just the 11-year solar half-cycle.

The word "deniers" in this context is a politically loaded term meant to stiffle debate. True science is not about consensus. True science is all about debating the evidence and never taking anyone's word for it. As Richard Feynman (http://amasci.com/feynexpt.txt) put it:

"You teachers who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap can maybe doubt the experts once in a while. Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

But on this site, only certain political speech gets censured.

Strange
2010-Aug-01, 08:43 PM
The word "deniers" in this context is a politically loaded term meant to stiffle debate.

Oh, hey, talking of debate, do you want to carry on the discussion you started (now in ATM)?

mugaliens
2010-Aug-02, 02:50 AM
And?

Climate change affects the biosphere. Always has, always will. Fast changes are especially nasty ones for the species.

And? When throughout Earth's history of life have species not been disappearing? Extinction is as normal and as natural as evolution itself. What's not normal is the notion that we have some responsibility to preserve all current species. I would argue that we do have the responsibility to minimize our adverse impact on the world, and to a large extent we do, though we have significant room for improvement.

parejkoj
2010-Aug-02, 05:36 AM
For those of who seem to disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html), in particular section 9.7 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html) which concluded that it is "very likely" that "Greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years," I have a few short questions for you.

1. Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)? If not, why not, and how do you refute the past ~150 years of climate science, going back at least as far as John Tyndall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work)?

2. What do you think is the correct value of the radiative forcing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing) for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels?

3. Given your answer to #2, what should the global average temperature anomaly be, compared to, say, 1850?

These three questions have very well accepted answers in the climate science community. Disagree with them at your own peril, and be prepared to support your disagreement.

Ken G
2010-Aug-02, 06:24 AM
The word "deniers" in this context is a politically loaded term meant to stiffle debate.Nope, the term is meant purely in the context of scientific evidence. If someone doubts that ghosts exist, on the grounds that no evidence that has stood up to the standards of science has ever been presented for them, then they are not "denying" ghosts, they are simply being skeptical. However, that is not the case for those who assert there is no secular warming trend, because in that case, they are contradicting a large amount of evidence that has been placed under expert scientific scrutiny. That is what I define as a "denier"-- someone for whom the scientific evidence has been presented, but they just say "I don't believe it." That's not like a skeptic, who points to the absence of evidence, it is someone who is claiming the scientific consensus is wrong-- they are denying the validity of the scientific consensus.

Now, that doesn't make them wrong, it makes them deniers. Deniers have been right in the past-- but not usually.


True science is not about consensus.Actually we had a thread recently that explored this misconception in some detail. The upshot was, blind faith in consensus is not true science, nor is ignoring the consensus. "True science" functions as a balance between accepting the consensus of experts when we do not have the opportunity to check it for ourselves, along with being willing to discover that the consensus is wrong when we do get that opportunity. But arbitrary denial of the consensus, simply on the grounds that a nonexpert does not find the expert's arguments convincing, is not striking that balance. Motivating new discoveries that point to holes in the consensus is striking that balance, but those discoveries will of course be subjected to the standards of science. People who believe we didn't go to the Moon are the types who take a nonexpert opinion as more convincing than an expert one.


True science is all about debating the evidence and never taking anyone's word for it. As Richard Feynman (http://amasci.com/feynexpt.txt) put it:

"You teachers who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap can maybe doubt the experts once in a while. Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Yes, I was the one who mentioned that same quote in that earlier thread. People around here actually know Feynman pretty well. All the same, Feynman knew that you had to accept the expert opinion in situations where you did not have access to testing it-- his quote referred to being willing to test it yourself when you do get that opportunity. Feynman loved to show that people making claims were all wet-- but he showed it, he didn't just claim it. He also knew that if doctors told him that smoking could cause cancer, we are well advised to believe them, as we will not want to test that for ourselves.

mugaliens
2010-Aug-02, 09:50 AM
I'd have to agree with Larry that the term "deniers" is loaded and contains negative connotations, similar to using the term "zealot" instead of the term "staunch enthusiast."

Ari Jokimaki
2010-Aug-02, 02:20 PM
And? When throughout Earth's history of life have species not been disappearing? Extinction is as normal and as natural as evolution itself.
This is straw man argumentation. I haven't claimed (and neither has mainstream science claimed) that species haven't been disappearing before. You also try to paint far too peachy picture of the situation. Mass extinction event is expected due to the ongoing climate change (mass extinctions have been associated with past climate changes also (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/papers-on-ecosystem-response-to-past-climate/)).


What's not normal is the notion that we have some responsibility to preserve all current species.
Once again with the straw man argumentation. I haven't claimed anything like that.

Swift
2010-Aug-02, 02:59 PM
What's not normal is the notion that we have some responsibility to preserve all current species.
I would not contend that the human race has a responsibility to preserve all current species. But I would contend that humans have a responsibility to prevent or minimize the harm that they do to the environment, ecosystems, and other species, and that we have a responsibility to prevent or undo the harm that we cause.

I personally feel this is a moral obligation, and so I probably can not support it with facts (I don't know how to defend any moral position factually, sorry).

I recognize that the difficulty is separating out the species extinctions that we cause from extinctions that occur naturally. There are probably obvious ones at each extreme (we did it versus nature did it), but I suspect there is a large number in the uncertain middle. But I still contend, that as physicians swear to do with their patients, that our first principle should be "do no further harm".

karadan
2010-Aug-02, 03:06 PM
Oh, hey, talking of debate, do you want to carry on the discussion you started (now in ATM)?

That's exactly what i was hoping.

Ken G
2010-Aug-02, 03:28 PM
I'd have to agree with Larry that the term "deniers" is loaded and contains negative connotations, similar to using the term "zealot" instead of the term "staunch enthusiast."And what term do you use, personally, for those who claim we did not land on the Moon? Yes, I thought you would apply this stated philosophy unevenly. I'm not saying that global warming deniers, who claim that global warming is a kind of vast conspiracy of misguided expert climatologists, make claims that are equally outrageous as the people who say that the Moon landing was a vast conspiracy of aerospace experts, but I'm saying that they are wearing the same shoes. And such people are not always wrong-- but they are usually wrong. That is also what we can say about scientific consensuses-- when stated with proper attention to their own limitations and uncertainties, they are usually correct-- which is the reason that we have expert scientists in the first place. (Notwithstanding Feynman's point that whenever we are in a position to test the expert opinion, we should embrace that opportunity-- as that is part of doing science.)

George
2010-Aug-02, 04:22 PM
Actually we had a thread recently that explored this misconception in some detail. The upshot was, blind faith in consensus is not true science, nor is ignoring the consensus. "True science" functions as a balance between accepting the consensus of experts when we do not have the opportunity to check it for ourselves, along with being willing to discover that the consensus is wrong when we do get that opportunity. But arbitrary denial of the consensus, simply on the grounds that a nonexpert does not find the expert's arguments convincing, is not striking that balance. Motivating new discoveries that point to holes in the consensus is striking that balance, but those discoveries will of course be subjected to the standards of science. People who believe we didn't go to the Moon are the types who take a nonexpert opinion as more convincing than an expert one. Nice!

"Balance" is the key word that seems to get ignored by both sides, though one side more than others, IMO.

Trakar
2010-Aug-02, 05:46 PM
I'd have to agree with Larry that the term "deniers" is loaded and contains negative connotations, similar to using the term "zealot" instead of the term "staunch enthusiast."

Well, denial of demonstrated facts and mainstream expert understandings is a negative position deserving of such connotations, whether we are talking climate change, physics or any other area of scientific understanding. I do think, however that the term is bandied about a bit too loosely in some quarters. Being applied not just to those who actually deny the science, but also to anyone who questions any aspect of the consequences, or proposed responses to the findings of science. This is inappropriate. While I, personally, believe that the implications are rather dire and can point to a volume of reviewed science supporting that potential, I certainly wouldn't claim that those who disagree with my assessment and can provide similar reference and support for their own perspective to be "deniers" of the science.

Trakar
2010-Aug-02, 06:02 PM
I would not contend that the human race has a responsibility to preserve all current species. But I would contend that humans have a responsibility to prevent or minimize the harm that they do to the environment, ecosystems, and other species, and that we have a responsibility to prevent or undo the harm that we cause.

I personally feel this is a moral obligation, and so I probably can not support it with facts (I don't know how to defend any moral position factually, sorry).

I recognize that the difficulty is separating out the species extinctions that we cause from extinctions that occur naturally. There are probably obvious ones at each extreme (we did it versus nature did it), but I suspect there is a large number in the uncertain middle. But I still contend, that as physicians swear to do with their patients, that our first principle should be "do no further harm".

To my thinking it isn't so much an issue of this species is our responsibility and we need to preserve it, that one is not, throw it on the scrap heap. Rather, we know and understand the importance of biologically diverse biomes, and not just for "nature's" sake, but for our own long-term benefit.
Therefore, it is our responsibility to minimize our impact, maintain and preserve, and where neccessary, restore, the diverse biomes that are essential to overall environmental health, and our own benefit. In the course of this, species will disappear and others will emerge, I'm not so concerned about wihich ones vanish (or why) and which ones emerge, I'm mainly concerned that what was a relatively balanced and diverse biome continues to be so.
Personally, this is more an issue of sapiens than anything else, and it is time we as a species earn our moniker. Time to truely be the wise, wise men and think our actions through a lot better than we have throughout most of our history.

Trakar
2010-Aug-02, 06:08 PM
And what term do you use, personally, for those who claim we did not land on the Moon? Yes, I thought you would apply this stated philosophy unevenly. I'm not saying that global warming deniers, who claim that global warming is a kind of vast conspiracy of misguided expert climatologists, make claims that are equally outrageous as the people who say that the Moon landing was a vast conspiracy of aerospace experts, but I'm saying that they are wearing the same shoes. And such people are not always wrong-- but they are usually wrong. That is also what we can say about scientific consensuses-- when stated with proper attention to their own limitations and uncertainties, they are usually correct-- which is the reason that we have expert scientists in the first place. (Notwithstanding Feynman's point that whenever we are in a position to test the expert opinion, we should embrace that opportunity-- as that is part of doing science.)


Ah,...I should have read a bit further before responding.

Trakar
2010-Aug-02, 06:09 PM
Nice!

"Balance" is the key word that seems to get ignored by both sides, though one side more than others, IMO.

What "sides" do you speak of?

Moose
2010-Aug-02, 06:35 PM
This thread is beginning to drift into the "AGW: yes it is, no it isn't" shoals. I will remind participants that S&T is not the place for such a discussion. Please return to safer waters.

George
2010-Aug-02, 07:06 PM
What "sides" do you speak of? It's never one-sided. "Global Cooling" of the 60's certainly wasn't one-sided. But there is a very broad spectrum of what is assumed or believed. People, all people, tend to believe what they prefer to believe, which can often become more askew from reality when both complexity and economical impact are taken into account. Choosing the optimal path becomes exponentialy harder with any increase in just these two factors, perhaps. Overreaction is not uncommon once the bandwagon has gotten the crowd's attention.

This is why it is imperative that serious efforts are made to give science the elbow room and funding it needs to address all the resonable variables that comprise what is their scientific models. Further, there must be un-biased people who can sell these findings in ways that don't come back to bite them.

Trakar
2010-Aug-02, 11:00 PM
Sorry, I thought you were referring to "sides" with reference to the topic of the thread. I did not mean to encourage further offtopic rambling and ranting.

There are indeed "sides" of relevence, though it is not a clear dichotomy of position. There are those who believe that the changes are, and will remain relatively minor and of little real individual, social or economic consequence, those who believe that the changes have been dramatic and will continue to accelerate in scope and scale, with major consequences, and the entire range of perspectives between these extremes. Using the science to properly qualifiy and quantify the degree and speed of these consequences and thus the actions we need to undertake individually, nationally and as a set of global responses is any area that has not been substantively addressed yet. There are indications, however, that the next IPCC report (AR5) (http://www.ipcc.ch/)includes an increased focus upon near/intermediate - term projections of impacts in the WGI section (which deals primarily with the science). Likewise, I believe both the WGII (which focusses upon vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it) and the WGIII (which looks at options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere) are scheduled to include a much more intensive focus upon properly qualifying the range of potentials indicated by the science, and the of precisely identifying the trends of the last few decades and what they protend for the future.

George
2010-Aug-02, 11:55 PM
There are indeed "sides" of relevence, though it is not a clear dichotomy of position. There are those who believe that the changes are, and will remain relatively minor and of little real individual, social or economic consequence, those who believe that the changes have been dramatic and will continue to accelerate in scope and scale, with major consequences, and the entire range of perspectives between these extremes. Using the science to properly qualifiy and quantify the degree and speed of these consequences and thus the actions we need to undertake individually, nationally and as a set of global responses is any area that has not been substantively addressed yet. There are indications, however, that the next IPCC report (AR5) (http://www.ipcc.ch/)includes an increased focus upon near/intermediate - term projections of impacts in the WGI section (which deals primarily with the science). Likewise, I believe both the WGII (which focusses upon vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it) and the WGIII (which looks at options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere) are scheduled to include a much more intensive focus upon properly qualifying the range of potentials indicated by the science, and the of precisely identifying the trends of the last few decades and what they protend for the future. That is an encouraging approach and I hope they won't have to herd too many cats in devoloping reports that are "jam-up and jelly-tight". I look forward to those reports and hope a reasonably balanced implementation plan emerges.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-03, 08:08 PM
I have no fear of global warming for the following reason; plants grow better in warmer and wetter conditions!
Specis can migrate, die out or adapt and where niche's open up then life will fill them up,. In time that is.......

Indeed I would rather it get warmer than colder....... Until the climate scientists give us a scientific timescale for our doom then I will worry about depleted uranium , thinning of the ozone layers, pollution from chemicals and space rocks more!
Specis were already going extinct due to man long before the climate scientists came along and in my opinion their expertise would better off concentrated elsewhere.

dgavin
2010-Aug-03, 08:33 PM
I would not contend that the human race has a responsibility to preserve all current species. But I would contend that humans have a responsibility to prevent or minimize the harm that they do to the environment, ecosystems, and other species, and that we have a responsibility to prevent or undo the harm that we cause.

I personally feel this is a moral obligation, and so I probably can not support it with facts (I don't know how to defend any moral position factually, sorry).

I recognize that the difficulty is separating out the species extinctions that we cause from extinctions that occur naturally. There are probably obvious ones at each extreme (we did it versus nature did it), but I suspect there is a large number in the uncertain middle. But I still contend, that as physicians swear to do with their patients, that our first principle should be "do no further harm".

I totally agree with you morality here, but there are facts to support what you are saying. It's called stewardship of ecology. For example, by forcing private lumber companies to always replant trees, Especially when they clear cut area's, Oregon has one of the few remaining diverse wildlife biosphere's. Where some species have almost disappeared from other area's of the country, they can still be found here in abundance, and they are even starting to adapt to urban settings. Beavers, Hawks, Mountain Lions, Wolves, Deer.

I live in a city of about 200,000 and we still have deer, mountain lions, hawks roaming around the city. Portland area still has beavers living in it's urban settings.

Beavers are another example of what happens when mankind /doesn't/ exercise some common sense with the biosphere. We over-hunted them in the 1700-1920's, to the point the species became nocturnal in under 2 centuries. So not only did we almost cause them to go extinct, we caused genetic alterations in just a few hundred years.

So stewardship is very important. It's a lesson that Oregon teaches in it's school's since the 70's, but doesn't seem to have to reached mainstream as of yet, and it should.

Trakar
2010-Aug-04, 12:52 AM
That is an encouraging approach and I hope they won't have to herd too many cats in devoloping reports that are "jam-up and jelly-tight". I look forward to those reports and hope a reasonably balanced implementation plan emerges.

Well, the IPCC is just the canary, it is up to the rest of us to recognize the importance of its warnings and act with wisdom.

Trakar
2010-Aug-04, 12:53 AM
I have no fear of global warming for the following reason; plants grow better in warmer and wetter conditions!
Specis can migrate, die out or adapt and where niche's open up then life will fill them up,. In time that is.......

Indeed I would rather it get warmer than colder....... Until the climate scientists give us a scientific timescale for our doom then I will worry about depleted uranium , thinning of the ozone layers, pollution from chemicals and space rocks more!
Specis were already going extinct due to man long before the climate scientists came along and in my opinion their expertise would better off concentrated elsewhere.

You worry about space rocks and depleted uranium, ...why?!

Swift
2010-Aug-04, 02:43 AM
I totally agree with you morality here, but there are facts to support what you are saying. It's called stewardship of ecology.
I'm very familiar with stewardship and the science behind it; for one, the park system I volunteer with does a lot of it and I've been personally involved with some of the programs.

I agree, there is a lot of science behind the "how" to do stewardship. My point was more about the "why" to do stewardship. I've heard the arguments that we should do it because some rainforest species might hold the cure to cancer, or how the ability for us to feed ourselves depends on certain ecosystems. None of that is wrong, but then it turns into a cost/benefit analysis about preserving ecosystems for these benefits, versus artificial means to achieve the same ends.

My point is beyond those cost/benefit reasons why we should do these things, there is a greater moral obligation.

Ken G
2010-Aug-04, 06:08 AM
It should also be pointed out that climate change will do a lot more than alter the ecology of various potentially endangered species, it will change the demographics of how much population each area can support. If people are affluent and want to live in a different state, they move, but if they are poor and want to live across a national border, they are SOL. Climate change will unsettle populations, it cannot do anything but, and that will in turn, inevitably, lead to suffering, strife, and worse of all, warfare. Instability is always bad, and sometimes, really really bad. It's true that climate changes can happen anyway, and so can war and instability, but we don't want to do anything that will speed that up or make it more prevalent-- for the good of us, not just the species that may go extinct.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-04, 12:36 PM
You worry about space rocks and depleted uranium, ...why?!

Space rocks for the same reason as the scientists who search for these things and depleted uranium because of a program on ted tv, where a woman claimed after the use of depleted uranium in iraq traces showed up around the world within two weeks. she blamed depleted uranium for the rise in diabetes , cancer, allergies and so on.

Swift
2010-Aug-04, 12:55 PM
It should also be pointed out that climate change will do a lot more than alter the ecology of various potentially endangered species, it will change the demographics of how much population each area can support. If people are affluent and want to live in a different state, they move, but if they are poor and want to live across a national border, they are SOL. Climate change will unsettle populations, it cannot do anything but, and that will in turn, inevitably, lead to suffering, strife, and worse of all, warfare. Instability is always bad, and sometimes, really really bad. It's true that climate changes can happen anyway, and so can war and instability, but we don't want to do anything that will speed that up or make it more prevalent-- for the good of us, not just the species that may go extinct.
Excellent points. But I even have some doubts about how well the First World / affluent nations will adapt.

Look for example at New Orleans, the levies, and Katrina. I lived in New Orleans in 1986/87 and there were concerns back then about how well the levies would hold up to a direct hit. There was a lot of talk about what a big project it would be and we really should do something. But I'm sure it becomes one of those "we can put this off to next year" things and it ends up never happening. Then Katrina hits, New Orleans is almost destroyed, and five years later they are still working on the damage.

Tell the city councils and the national governments of coastal cities around the world that in the next 30 to 50 years you are going to have either spend billions of dollars to protect your city from the sea, or move your population, either one of which could take a decade to two. Let me know how quickly they jump on these tasks.

swampyankee
2010-Aug-04, 03:13 PM
Space rocks for the same reason as the scientists who search for these things and depleted uranium because of a program on ted tv, where a woman claimed after the use of depleted uranium in iraq traces showed up around the world within two weeks. she blamed depleted uranium for the rise in diabetes , cancer, allergies and so on.

We may be able to do something about space rocks of significant size, but I'm not sure that the political leadership would bother. After all, if there are enough people who would be financially inconvenienced by the amount of money spent on preventing a 5km diameter rock hitting, say Houston, nothing would be done. It's only a prediction, and anyway, there have been large impacts on Earth before.

Depleted uranium? I wonder how the current trace levels of uranium compare with those during the era of above-ground atomic testing, and how the current levels of diabetes, cancer, etc compare with the levels of that time. One must also remember that uranium is a naturally occurring substance, as anybody who lives in the Radon Belt of the US can testify. Many (most? all?) volcanic rocks contain detectable levels of uranium, so any dust will contain detectable levels of uranium. Since depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium -- it's depleted because the most radioactive isotope has been removed -- one would expect that trace levels of natural (undepleted, therefore more radioactive) uranium or trace levels of enriched uranium (from those old above-ground nuclear tests)

So, current evidence is that the mean global temperature is rising, levels of greenhouse gases are rising, and it's quite well established science that greenhouse gases are significant factors in the radiative heat transfer from the Earth's surface into space. The levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been measured, mostly using ice core data, and there is an increase that correlates with the increased use of coal and other fossil fuels. Any hypothesis that global climate change is not effected by anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas levels would have to come up with a testable alternative hypothesis that can explain all the data, including why increased levels of greenhouse gases are either not anthropogenic or are irrelevant to the temperature rise. Until then, they're not engaging in a scientific debate; they're just denying evidence they don't like.

Ken G
2010-Aug-04, 03:22 PM
Look for example at New Orleans, the levies, and Katrina. I lived in New Orleans in 1986/87 and there were concerns back then about how well the levies would hold up to a direct hit. There was a lot of talk about what a big project it would be and we really should do something. But I'm sure it becomes one of those "we can put this off to next year" things and it ends up never happening. Yes, when you are trying to get re-elected, it's easier to say "look at the problems we have now that I solved", rather than, "look at the potential problems you didn't even know to worry about that I made it so you don't have to worry about." Global warming mitigation certainly suffers from that issue.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-04, 05:16 PM
We may be able to do something about space rocks of significant size, but I'm not sure that the political leadership would bother. After all, if there are enough people who would be financially inconvenienced by the amount of money spent on preventing a 5km diameter rock hitting, say Houston, nothing would be done. It's only a prediction, and anyway, there have been large impacts on Earth before.

Depleted uranium? I wonder how the current trace levels of uranium compare with those during the era of above-ground atomic testing, and how the current levels of diabetes, cancer, etc compare with the levels of that time. One must also remember that uranium is a naturally occurring substance, as anybody who lives in the Radon Belt of the US can testify. Many (most? all?) volcanic rocks contain detectable levels of uranium, so any dust will contain detectable levels of uranium. Since depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium -- it's depleted because the most radioactive isotope has been removed -- one would expect that trace levels of natural (undepleted, therefore more radioactive) uranium or trace levels of enriched uranium (from those old above-ground nuclear tests)

So, current evidence is that the mean global temperature is rising, levels of greenhouse gases are rising, and it's quite well established science that greenhouse gases are significant factors in the radiative heat transfer from the Earth's surface into space. The levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been measured, mostly using ice core data, and there is an increase that correlates with the increased use of coal and other fossil fuels. Any hypothesis that global climate change is not effected by anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas levels would have to come up with a testable alternative hypothesis that can explain all the data, including why increased levels of greenhouse gases are either not anthropogenic or are irrelevant to the temperature rise. Until then, they're not engaging in a scientific debate; they're just denying evidence they don't like.

That still does not effect my premise that its better to get warmer and wetter than colder and dryer. We can not expect the climate to stay the same.

Strange
2010-Aug-04, 05:46 PM
That still does not effect my premise that its better to get warmer and wetter than colder and dryer.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. But, the reason it is called "climate change" rather than "global warming" is that some places will get warmer and wetter, some will be colder and wetter (probably northern Europe), some will be warmer and drier (perhaps the Mediterranean area), and some will be colder and drier.


We can not expect the climate to stay the same.

No. But we can try to avoid pushing it faster and harder than would happen naturally.

Gillianren
2010-Aug-04, 05:52 PM
That still does not effect my premise that its better to get warmer and wetter than colder and dryer. We can not expect the climate to stay the same.

What about warmer and dryer, which is what's going to happen in a lot of places? What about our ecosystem here, which depends on cool weather and an awful lot of rain? Antarctica is dependent on being very cold and a desert. You may prefer warmer and wetter, but it is not, despite what you may have been told, universally better for ecosystems. What's more, for a lot of the places that get wetter, it will be because of the ocean actually rising into them, not because of increased rainfall. And if they do get increased rainfall, it will be in the form of devastating storms. In short, "warmer and wetter is better than colder and dryer" is a simplistic and, frankly, misunderstood view of what climate change will do.

As to not expecting the climate to stay the same, why do you not see that there is a difference between expecting the climate to stay the same and not wanting to cause catastrophic damage to the ecosystem and to ourselves? Because it will hurt us, and much worse than a lot of people are willing to admit.

And actually, worrying about depleted uranium instead is foolish. Shoot, you can still buy dishes (albeit antiques) with uranium in them, and the only reason you shouldn't eat off them is the chance of heavy metal poisoning.

swampyankee
2010-Aug-04, 06:03 PM
That still does not effect my premise that its better to get warmer and wetter than colder and dryer. We can not expect the climate to stay the same.

I'm not sure that one can demonstrate that "warmer and wetter" is necessarily better than "colder and dryer." The former will mean that the incidences of many insect-vectored diseases will increase. "Warmer and wetter," in and of itself, will also have some significantly adverse agricultural impacts. In any case, "warmer and wetter" is a globally averaged value. Some areas will get warmer and dryer, warmer and wetter, colder and wetter, and colder and dryer.

I don't expect the climate to remain stagnant. I also don't think that it's a good idea to twiddle the knobs of a complex system without knowing what one is doing.

Trakar
2010-Aug-04, 06:53 PM
Space rocks for the same reason as the scientists who search for these things and depleted uranium because of a program on ted tv, where a woman claimed after the use of depleted uranium in iraq traces showed up around the world within two weeks. she blamed depleted uranium for the rise in diabetes , cancer, allergies and so on.

Got link?

Regardless, I guess it just goes to show that even TED talks need to be viewed with discretion and a lot of independent research. DU is no more dangerous than lead (which is far from harmless) which makes the DU issue much more Boogey than Monster.

1-5 mile diameter Space Rocks and AGW are roughly equivilant in terms of potential damage to the Earth's ecosystems. We know that AGW is occurring and will increasingly impact us for the next several centuries even with we could magically reduce human emissions to zero today. Of course that won't happen, and we are in fact accelerating in our increases of emissions which will only exagerate and accelerate the effects of these impacts, and this doesn't even get into "tipping point" events. Space rocks are an unknown, there may be one in our future, some time in the next few tens of millions of years, or there may not. I've nothing against investigating the possibility, but to consider space rocks worrying while ignoring and denying AGW, is bizarre to say the least.

Trakar
2010-Aug-04, 06:58 PM
We may be able to do something about space rocks of significant size, but I'm not sure that the political leadership would bother. After all, if there are enough people who would be financially inconvenienced by the amount of money spent on preventing a 5km diameter rock hitting, say Houston, nothing would be done. It's only a prediction, and anyway, there have been large impacts on Earth before.

Depleted uranium? I wonder how the current trace levels of uranium compare with those during the era of above-ground atomic testing, and how the current levels of diabetes, cancer, etc compare with the levels of that time. One must also remember that uranium is a naturally occurring substance, as anybody who lives in the Radon Belt of the US can testify. Many (most? all?) volcanic rocks contain detectable levels of uranium, so any dust will contain detectable levels of uranium. Since depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium -- it's depleted because the most radioactive isotope has been removed -- one would expect that trace levels of natural (undepleted, therefore more radioactive) uranium or trace levels of enriched uranium (from those old above-ground nuclear tests)

So, current evidence is that the mean global temperature is rising, levels of greenhouse gases are rising, and it's quite well established science that greenhouse gases are significant factors in the radiative heat transfer from the Earth's surface into space. The levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been measured, mostly using ice core data, and there is an increase that correlates with the increased use of coal and other fossil fuels. Any hypothesis that global climate change is not effected by anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas levels would have to come up with a testable alternative hypothesis that can explain all the data, including why increased levels of greenhouse gases are either not anthropogenic or are irrelevant to the temperature rise. Until then, they're not engaging in a scientific debate; they're just denying evidence they don't like.

Ahhh, no mere hat-rack on those shoulders!
nicely framed.

Trakar
2010-Aug-04, 07:09 PM
That still does not effect my premise that its better to get warmer and wetter than colder and dryer. We can not expect the climate to stay the same.

Actually, if you look at the temp. record of the last 8K years or so, the global average temp. has maintained remarkable stability, and this is largely credited with what has allowed us as a species to develop, expand into, and sustain a global civilization. We are now pushing the global climate into a new paradigm, never before encountered by our species, the full range of effects and the results from those impacts are largely unknown. There is no standard by which to determine better or worse, but by sheer analogy it will be much closer to hell than the well moderated garden that has incubated our species for the last few thousand years.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-04, 08:59 PM
Got link?

Regardless, I guess it just goes to show that even TED talks need to be viewed with discretion and a lot of independent research. DU is no more dangerous than lead (which is far from harmless) which makes the DU issue much more Boogey than Monster.

1-5 mile diameter Space Rocks and AGW are roughly equivilant in terms of potential damage to the Earth's ecosystems. We know that AGW is occurring and will increasingly impact us for the next several centuries even with we could magically reduce human emissions to zero today. Of course that won't happen, and we are in fact accelerating in our increases of emissions which will only exagerate and accelerate the effects of these impacts, and this doesn't even get into "tipping point" events. Space rocks are an unknown, there may be one in our future, some time in the next few tens of millions of years, or there may not. I've nothing against investigating the possibility, but to consider space rocks worrying while ignoring and denying AGW, is bizarre to say the least.

I am not denying or ignoring AGW. I'm merely saying that plants tend to grow better in warmer and wetter conditions . Also the more co2 the more vigorously a plant grows . Also the growing season will tend to be longer.
It is bizarre to worry about climate change because that's what climate does-change. Yes the climate has been remarkably stable over the last 8k years ,the important word being remarkably , but there has still been extinctions and swings in climate .

An impact from a space rock or a volcanic eruption can not be compared to AGW as these events are near instantaneous and damage from AGW takes a little bit longer to materialise, even with ''tipping'' points.
I will still worry more about DU than AGW even with the assurances that it is no more dangerous than lead.

Strange
2010-Aug-04, 09:11 PM
I am not denying or ignoring AGW. I'm merely saying that plants tend to grow better in warmer and wetter conditions.

So do, some don't. Plants adapted to a cooler or drier climate would suffer.


Also the more co2 the more vigorously a plant grows .

And, as always, it isn't as simple as that. There was a long discussion about this here a while ago. Some plants will benefit, others will suffer. And remember weeds and pest species may thrive as as well or better than crops.


It is bizarre to worry about climate change because that's what climate does-change.

Not bizarre at all when the change is as fast and as great as it appears to be. And we have the opportunity to do something about it.

It is equally bizarrre to worry about rocks from space: after all, it has happened before so why worry about it.

Gillianren
2010-Aug-04, 09:12 PM
I am not denying or ignoring AGW. I'm merely saying that plants tend to grow better in warmer and wetter conditions . Also the more co2 the more vigorously a plant grows . Also the growing season will tend to be longer.

Not all plants do, in fact, grow better in warmer and wetter conditions. The plant life back in Southern California, where I grew up, doesn't know what to do with wet. The plant life here and parts north doesn't know what to do with warm. Not only that, but not everywhere will be warmer and wetter, as you seem to be ignoring. On average, the climate will be warmer and wetter, but a lot of the predictions I've heard suggest Dust Bowl conditions through much of the central United States. And if your "warmer and wetter" comes in the nature of frequent, violent storms, plant life will have different problems.


It is bizarre to worry about climate change because that's what climate does-change. Yes the climate has been remarkably stable over the last 8k years ,the important word being remarkably , but there has still been extinctions and swings in climate .

Sure. But to go from "remarkably stable" to "sudden, dramatic change that we caused" is not a good thing, nor is it precedented in our history or that of essentially any species ever on Earth.


An impact from a space rock or a volcanic eruption can not be compared to AGW as these events are near instantaneous and damage from AGW takes a little bit longer to materialise, even with ''tipping'' points.

Which means we have more time to do something about it, right? I mean, if we start now?


I will still worry more about DU than AGW even with the assurances that it is no more dangerous than lead.

Why?

Strange
2010-Aug-04, 09:14 PM
Why?

Because it was on the INTERWEBS, man!!! Come on: think!!!1

Boratssister
2010-Aug-04, 09:49 PM
Because it was on the INTERWEBS, man!!! Come on: think!!!1

AGW is everywhere , that's what cause's the hysteria.
you may think its ok to breath in DU or lead for that matter but I lose 90percent of my sleep crying with worry over this....... Please note , I'm joking!

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 12:18 AM
I am not denying or ignoring AGW. I'm merely saying that plants tend to grow better in warmer and wetter conditions . Also the more co2 the more vigorously a plant grows .

Recent Widespread Tree Growth Decline Despite Increasing Atmospheric CO2 - http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011543

CO2 Enhancement of Forest Productivity Constrained by Limited Nitrogen Availability - http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3747/version/1

Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals - http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5980/899

(Just a quick sloppy search, more available for the interested.)


Also the growing season will tend to be longer.

for many crops photoperiod is more important than last/first frost throughout much of the world already. Beyond this water availability and summer extremes of heat and earlier spring thaws/later Fall cold snaps aren't going to have much impact beyond encouraging the growth of weeds and insects that hurt rather than help food crop production.



It is bizarre to worry about climate change because that's what climate does-change. Yes the climate has been remarkably stable over the last 8k years ,the important word being remarkably , but there has still been extinctions and swings in climate .


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, could you please expand and explain yourself and support what you are contending with some supporting references?



An impact from a space rock or a volcanic eruption can not be compared to AGW as these events are near instantaneous and damage from AGW takes a little bit longer to materialise, even with ''tipping'' points.


Who has compared AGW to a volcanic eruption? How many major impacts have occurred in the last 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? 1,000,000 years? 10,000,000 years? 100,000,000 years? How often, on average, does science estimate that such impacts will occur? Based on those odds how likely is it that an asteroid impact will occur before the impacts of the currently occurring anthropogenically forced climate change reach their peak effect?


I will still worry more about DU than AGW even with the assurances that it is no more dangerous than lead.

Possibly, but such concerns aren't borne of rational consideration and evaluation, ...at least as far as I can tell.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 01:43 AM
Recent Widespread Tree Growth Decline Despite Increasing Atmospheric CO2 - http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011543

CO2 Enhancement of Forest Productivity Constrained by Limited Nitrogen Availability - http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3747/version/1

Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals - http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5980/899

(Just a quick sloppy search, more available for the interested.)



for many crops photoperiod is more important than last/first frost throughout much of the world already. Beyond this water availability and summer extremes of heat and earlier spring thaws/later Fall cold snaps aren't going to have much impact beyond encouraging the growth of weeds and insects that hurt rather than help food crop production.



I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, could you please expand and explain yourself and support what you are contending with some supporting references?

I don't do references as I'm not here to prove anything. Climate was different in the uk when stonehenge was built. It was different when the vikings colonised Greenland. Specis have become extinct in this remarkably stable 8 k years.
And if plants don't grow better under warmer climates why do we use greenhouses?

Who has compared AGW to a volcanic eruption? How many major impacts have occurred in the last 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? 1,000,000 years? 10,000,000 years? 100,000,000 years? How often, on average, does science estimate that such impacts will occur? Based on those odds how likely is it that an asteroid impact will occur before the impacts of the currently occurring anthropogenically forced climate change reach their peak effect?

Well we can expect another tunguska anytime, if I remember rightly every 100years or so.......lets hope its not over populated areas.
As for volcanic eruptions? I should have mentioned those in my original space rock /DU post.

Possibly, but such concerns aren't borne of rational consideration and evaluation, ...at least as far as I can tell.

Rational consideration is a virtue not everyone is blessed with.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 01:48 AM
Rational consideration is a virtue not everyone is blessed with.

I'm sorry that my response above has gone wrong, weird! my reply seems to have mascaraded as trakers post.......

Gillianren
2010-Aug-05, 02:23 AM
Rational consideration is a virtue not everyone is blessed with.

Indeed true.

Swift
2010-Aug-05, 02:23 AM
AGW is everywhere , that's what cause's the hysteria.
you may think its ok to breath in DU or lead for that matter but I lose 90percent of my sleep crying with worry over this....... Please note , I'm joking!
Boratssister,

I'm going to put my moderator hat on for the moment. You've expressed your concerns about Depleted Uranium and how they compare to your concerns about Climate Change. But this thread is not about DU. Any further posts about it, or other non-climate change concerns will start becoming a serious thread derailment. If you would like to discuss these other topics, please start a new thread.

You might also want to search BAUT for Depleted Uranium, I'm pretty positive there have been past discussions.

Swift
2010-Aug-05, 02:34 AM
As several people have pointed out, the reaction of plants to climate change is complex. And there are feedbacks - plants also influence climate, and not just by taking up CO2.

A Sciencedaily article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161435.htm) from May 2010 summarizing a report from the May 3-7 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Plants have a very complex and diverse influence on the climate system," says study co-author Ken Caldeira of Carnegie's Department of Global Ecology. "Plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but they also have other effects, such as changing the amount of evaporation from the land surface.

...

Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree's cooling power.

clop
2010-Aug-05, 03:04 AM
It should also be pointed out that climate change will do a lot more than alter the ecology of various potentially endangered species, it will change the demographics of how much population each area can support. If people are affluent and want to live in a different state, they move, but if they are poor and want to live across a national border, they are SOL. Climate change will unsettle populations, it cannot do anything but, and that will in turn, inevitably, lead to suffering, strife, and worse of all, warfare. Instability is always bad, and sometimes, really really bad. It's true that climate changes can happen anyway, and so can war and instability, but we don't want to do anything that will speed that up or make it more prevalent-- for the good of us, not just the species that may go extinct.

I say bring it on. Life is all about changes. How boring would it be if everything was the same year in year out until the end of time. Live a little. Find novel solutions to the changing climate that allow us to adapt as a society rather than trying to control the climatic changes. If the sea rises we move inland. If food can't support us all the population will shrink. If species go extinct then so be it. One day all humans will be dead and gone. Live a little!!

clop

Swift
2010-Aug-05, 03:06 AM
I say bring it on. Life is all about changes.
Do you have the same attitude to other sorts of preventable problems? For example, if the Earth was going to be struck by a large meteor or comet, but with some serious effort we could prevent that, would you also say "bring it on"?

Gillianren
2010-Aug-05, 03:41 AM
How about smallpox?

Oh, wait. We solved that problem by taking real scientific action, didn't we?

Ken G
2010-Aug-05, 03:49 AM
I say bring it on. Life is all about changes. How boring would it be if everything was the same year in year out until the end of time.But that's just not an attitude anyone could take seriously in their own life, so how can we apply it to the planet as a whole? Each year that your house does not burn down is just so much like the last, it could seem boring. So why have fire extinguishers? Live a little-- next time you get a grease fire in the kitchen, just let it burn! In fact, throw a little gas on it, what have you got to lose?

mugaliens
2010-Aug-05, 03:53 AM
I would not contend that the human race has a responsibility to preserve all current species. But I would contend that humans have a responsibility to prevent or minimize the harm that they do to the environment, ecosystems, and other species, and that we have a responsibility to prevent or undo the harm that we cause.

As have I (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106346-NOAA-Report-on-Global-Temperature-Rise?p=1771095#post1771095), but I would argue there are rational limits. For example, I wouldn't support spending any significant sum of dollars attempting to bring back the dodo bird, but if it could be brought back as part of an ancilliary program without much additional cost, I'd support it. However, with a Mauritiun population of 1.3 million people, I doubt the dodo could survive a reintroduction to its only known habitat.

Strange
2010-Aug-05, 07:48 AM
That still does not effect my premise that its better to get warmer and wetter than colder and dryer.

I'm not sure the people currently suffering from the floods in Pakistan would agree. One effect of climate change is likely to be more extremes of weather in some places, making hurricanes, monsoons, tropical storms, and droughts more destructive than they are now. And, yes of course, we will adapt and the species as a whole, and probably civilization, will continue. But that rather overlooks the costs, in human terms as well as the real financial costs of aid, repairs, lost production, etc.

clop
2010-Aug-05, 08:45 AM
But that's just not an attitude anyone could take seriously in their own life, so how can we apply it to the planet as a whole? Each year that your house does not burn down is just so much like the last, it could seem boring. So why have fire extinguishers? Live a little-- next time you get a grease fire in the kitchen, just let it burn! In fact, throw a little gas on it, what have you got to lose?

That's not a valid analogy, and neither is the asteroid. An asteroid or a chip pan fire is acute and has immediate consequences. The changing climate is gradual and the time for little steps is measured in decades or human generations.

clop

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 10:59 AM
Boratssister,

I'm going to put my moderator hat on for the moment. You've expressed your concerns about Depleted Uranium and how they compare to your concerns about Climate Change. But this thread is not about DU. Any further posts about it, or other non-climate change concerns will start becoming a serious thread derailment. If you would like to discuss these other topics, please start a new thread.

You might also want to search BAUT for Depleted Uranium, I'm pretty positive there have been past discussions.

Thankyou, a good forum needs good moderators. I tried not to go into details on off topic posts however I was asked direct questions. May I appologise and commit myself to sticking to the rules.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 11:14 AM
I'm not sure the people currently suffering from the floods in Pakistan would agree. One effect of climate change is likely to be more extremes of weather in some places, making hurricanes, monsoons, tropical storms, and droughts more destructive than they are now. And, yes of course, we will adapt and the species as a whole, and probably civilization, will continue. But that rather overlooks the costs, in human terms as well as the real financial costs of aid, repairs, lost production, etc.

There has been floods in pakistan before,many times. You can not directly link the two.
The heatwave in russia is the worst for 130 years, what caused the heatwave 130 years ago? How likely is it that climate change will cause more extremes? 100percent more likely , 10 percent more likely?

Strange
2010-Aug-05, 11:15 AM
That's not a valid analogy, and neither is the asteroid. An asteroid or a chip pan fire is acute and has immediate consequences. The changing climate is gradual and the time for little steps is measured in decades or human generations.

A chip pan fire can also be put out immediately. But actions to counter the changes to the environment that we have made will takes decades or generations. And we should have started a long time ago.

(I don't see why that invalidates the analogy; you appeared to be saying all change is good. But, whatever.)

Strange
2010-Aug-05, 11:29 AM
There has been floods in pakistan before,many times. You can not directly link the two.

I'm not linking any specific weather event to climate change. Saying that this is the hottest/coldest/wettest/driest year on record tells us nothing about climate change. However, "warmer and wetter" is not necessarily universally better.


How likely is it that climate change will cause more extremes? 100percent more likely , 10 percent more likely?

Obviously not 100% given how little we know about the complex systems involved but pretty likely, as I understand it.


It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.

Gillianren
2010-Aug-05, 07:08 PM
That's not a valid analogy, and neither is the asteroid. An asteroid or a chip pan fire is acute and has immediate consequences. The changing climate is gradual and the time for little steps is measured in decades or human generations.

But little things are already now big problems, and only the people directly impacted have any interest in doing anything about it. The fact is, this is going to be very bad for a lot of people, and it doesn't have to be. Showing callous disregard for those people just means that, when it starts having major impact on, oh, Australia, it'll be too late.

lomiller1
2010-Aug-05, 07:17 PM
That still does not effect my premise that its better to get warmer and wetter than colder and dryer. We can not expect the climate to stay the same.

You won’t find many Cactus or Jackpine in the Florida Everglades. Plants are adapted to a specific set of climatic conditions, if these change the ecosystem can move to a new more suitable local but that can take hundreds, perhaps thousands of years where existing populations struggle on in climates no longer suitable for their adaptations.


Others have pointed it out, but you are not justified in assuming every place will become dryer. In fact the most common occurrence is that wet places will get wetter, dry places will get dryer neither of which is likely to benefit local plant life. Another common change will be northwards/southward movement of monsoons. This will tend to make places that are often very wet, dry and places that are usually dry very wet. Again, this isn’t good for the plants living in those places.

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 09:13 PM
Rational consideration is a virtue not everyone is blessed with.

Obviously

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 09:28 PM
Obviously

Indeed obviously,

P.s. What caused the russian heatwave 130 years ago?
Cherry picking seems to be a popular past time these days.

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 09:29 PM
That's not a valid analogy, and neither is the asteroid. An asteroid or a chip pan fire is acute and has immediate consequences. The changing climate is gradual and the time for little steps is measured in decades or human generations.
clop

So because the damage is incremental and cumulative in terms of a human lifespan, we shouldn't do anything to stop or reverse the accelerating damages we are causing??

Is this seriously your position?!

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 09:36 PM
There has been floods in pakistan before,many times. You can not directly link the two.
The heatwave in russia is the worst for 130 years, what caused the heatwave 130 years ago? How likely is it that climate change will cause more extremes? 100percent more likely , 10 percent more likely?

100% more likely, a simple physics consequence of reaching for a new equilibrium in a system undergoing an increase in energy retention.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 09:38 PM
You won’t find many Cactus or Jackpine in the Florida Everglades. Plants are adapted to a specific set of climatic conditions, if these change the ecosystem can move to a new more suitable local but that can take hundreds, perhaps thousands of years where existing populations struggle on in climates no longer suitable for their adaptations.


Others have pointed it out, but you are not justified in assuming every place will become dryer. In fact the most common occurrence is that wet places will get wetter, dry places will get dryer neither of which is likely to benefit local plant life. Another common change will be northwards/southward movement of monsoons. This will tend to make places that are often very wet, dry and places that are usually dry very wet. Again, this isn’t good for the plants living in those places.

Be careful what you assume I assume. As we all no what assumptions are the mother of!

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 09:39 PM
Obviously not 100% given how little we know about the complex systems involved but pretty likely, as I understand it.

Note the terms being used, it is definitely "more likely."

Strange
2010-Aug-05, 09:41 PM
Note the terms being used, it is definitely "more likely."

I guess "pretty likely" is pretty ambiguous! I was thinking along the lines of 90% or more.

Gillianren
2010-Aug-05, 09:42 PM
Indeed obviously,

P.s. What caused the russian heatwave 130 years ago?
Cherry picking seems to be a popular past time these days.

What is the difference between weather and climate?

lomiller1
2010-Aug-05, 09:55 PM
Be careful what you assume I assume.

If you were not assuming most of the earth would get wetter under global warming why did you claim plant growth would go up because due to a wetter world? TBH I think I was being charitable in calling it an unjustified assumption because any other reasonably interpretation comes out worse.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 09:56 PM
Note the terms being used, it is definitely "more likely."

I don't agree. The severe weather events may become less frequent . The warming of the climate since the last ice age has led to ''8 thousand years of remarkably stable climate ''. I don't see why the trend should suddenly stop, even with AGW.

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 09:57 PM
Indeed obviously,

P.s. What caused the russian heatwave 130 years ago?
Cherry picking seems to be a popular past time these days.

Actually, in the case of Russia, that is about the length of officially recorded instrument temperature readings for many of the areas covered. It would have been more accurate for them to have stated that the heat wave was "the hottest in modern instrument record." but that evidently doesn't have the journalistic ring of "hottest in 130 years." (earliest reliable Moscow temp/weather records begin in 1879)

Occasionally, confluences of unusual conditions produce unusual results. When these unusual conditions begin occurring with great frequency and growing regularity the results can no longer be considered unusual.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 10:03 PM
If you were not assuming most of the earth would get wetter under global warming why did you claim plant growth would go up because due to a wetter world? TBH I think I was being charitable in calling it an unjustified assumption because any other reasonably interpretation comes out worse.

If you look at your post you wrote - i am not justified to think the world would get drier- did you assume I claimed that?
Well one thing I do know is when the earth is colder then it tends to be drier - I have great faith in opposites.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 10:14 PM
Actually, in the case of Russia, that is about the length of officially recorded instrument temperature readings for many of the areas covered. It would have been more accurate for them to have stated that the heat wave was "the hottest in modern instrument record." but that evidently doesn't have the journalistic ring of "hottest in 130 years." (earliest reliable Moscow temp/weather records begin in 1879)

Occasionally, confluences of unusual conditions produce unusual results. When these unusual conditions begin occurring with great frequency and growing regularity the results can no longer be considered unusual.

When will this occur? How will we tell? And over how many years will it take to say with absolute certainty?
I care because my gas and electric bills have gone through the roof even after fitting energy saving lightbulbs and insulating my home, even though my house is sitting on square kilometers of coal. And I don't fully understand how in a world that is warming up so many record low temperatures are being broken.

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 10:17 PM
I don't agree. The severe weather events may become less frequent . The warming of the climate since the last ice age has led to ''8 thousand years of remarkably stable climate ''. I don't see why the trend should suddenly stop, even with AGW.

The failure is largely in your understandings. The climate has not been continuously "warming since the end of the ice age." The current interglacial period naturally peaked in its warming ~8k years ago, and has been relatively stable. With a slightly declining heat trend, which would have eventually led to an advancing glaciation and a return to the depths of the current ice age in another 10-20ka. The human industrial age based upon fossil carbon fuels short circuited this process and has already driven us back up in temp past the temps that initially triggered our interglacial period, and by many accounts may have already met or exceeded the temps of previous IGs. The stability was in the gradual cooling period, all available evidence indicates that accelerating temp. increases are pretty much always associated with various extreme weather events.

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 10:20 PM
When will this occur? How will we tell? And over how many years will it take to say with absolute certainty?
I care because my gas and electric bills have gone through the roof even after fitting energy saving lightbulbs and insulating my home, even though my house is sitting on square kilometers of coal. And I don't fully understand how in a world that is warming up so many record low temperatures are being broken.

do not conflate one isolated position on the globe with global average temperatures. Much less your individual filtered perceptions with reality.
Where do you live?

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 10:46 PM
The failure is largely in your understandings. The climate has not been continuously "warming since the end of the ice age." The current interglacial period naturally peaked in its warming ~8k years ago, and has been relatively stable. With a slightly declining heat trend, which would have eventually led to an advancing glaciation and a return to the depths of the current ice age in another 10-20ka. The human industrial age based upon fossil carbon fuels short circuited this process and has already driven us back up in temp past the temps that initially triggered our interglacial period, and by many accounts may have already met or exceeded the temps of previous IGs. The stability was in the gradual cooling period, all available evidence indicates that accelerating temp. increases are pretty much always associated with various extreme weather events.

Are you saying the warming that caused the warming and the thaw in the last ice age did not lead to a remarkably stable climate? This conflicts with your assertions it is ''definatly '' more likely that warming will cause more extreme weather. Are you sure extreme weather was not more prevalent in the last ice age? ''Definatly'' should not be used unless you are definate. Words like this is food for the sceptics.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 10:51 PM
do not conflate one isolated position on the globe with global average temperatures. Much less your individual filtered perceptions with reality.
Where do you live?

I live in Yorkshire in England. And many areas of the world have broken record lows in the last 30years.

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 11:20 PM
I live in Yorkshire in England. And many areas of the world have broken record lows in the last 30years.

Many more have broken record highs, exactly the types of increased extremes we should expect from the accumulating increases of climate energy(heat).

Looks like you're warm enough now.
"Brits roast but no record" - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article82787.ece
hopefully your air handler cools as well as heating your home.

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 11:30 PM
Are you saying the warming that caused the warming and the thaw in the last ice age did not lead to a remarkably stable climate? This conflicts with your assertions it is ''definatly '' more likely that warming will cause more extreme weather. Are you sure extreme weather was not more prevalent in the last ice age? ''Definatly'' should not be used unless you are definate. Words like this is food for the sceptics.

if you are going to put my words in quotes, please actually use my words otherwise the quotes serve no purpose but to mislead.
That said, again it is your understanding that is at fault here, not my statements, please try reading what I wrote, not what you are trying to twist my words into saying. I meant what I said and all that I have said is consistent.
As for scepticism, I suggest you investigate the term and actually learn to apply the principles before you begin soapboxing about that which you obviously have little acquaintance with.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 11:31 PM
Many more have broken record highs, exactly the types of increased extremes we should expect from the accumulating increases of climate energy(heat).

Looks like you're warm enough now.
"Brits roast but no record" - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article82787.ece
hopefully your air handler cools as well as heating your home.

I wish it did warm up.. Our recent summers have been cool and wet. Our recent winters have been awfully cold.
On the whole though in a warming world you would expect record lows to be rare if not non existant.

Trakar
2010-Aug-05, 11:33 PM
I wish it did warm up.. Our recent summers have been cool and wet. Our recent winters have been awfully cold.
On the whole though in a warming world you would expect record lows to be rare if not non existant.

Here the flaw lies in both your understanding and reasoning, but that is becoming less and less surprising.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 11:38 PM
if you are going to put my words in quotes, please actually use my words otherwise the quotes serve no purpose but to mislead.
That said, again it is your understanding that is at fault here, not my statements, please try reading what I wrote, not what you are trying to twist my words into saying. I meant what I said and all that I have said is consistent.
As for scepticism, I suggest you investigate the term and actually learn to apply the principles before you begin soapboxing about that which you obviously have little acquaintance with.

And there is a old saying in Yorkshire ''look at the kettle calling the pot black'' I am not the one misleading people here. The problem is lack of communication . The word ''definatly'' is as misleading as it gets.

Boratssister
2010-Aug-05, 11:44 PM
Here the flaw lies in both your understanding and reasoning, but that is becoming less and less surprising.

If you say so.......you are the one who knows the future and is so definate about it. Even nostradamus never said things would definatly happen. Lol

Trakar
2010-Aug-06, 12:10 AM
And there is a old saying in Yorkshire ''look at the kettle calling the pot black'' I am not the one misleading people here. The problem is lack of communication . The word ''definatly'' is as misleading as it gets.

The word I used is "definitely," using your term and putting quotes around it implies that I used that word, misleading and disingenuous.
Communication is one of many problems in this exchange and it is now quickly devolving beyond your mere lack of relevent scientific understandings, therefore it is probably best that we cease the escalation, you may have your last say, if you wish, I am through discussing this issue with you until you demonstrate the ability to participate in such discussions in an appropriate and productive manner.

Tinaa
2010-Aug-06, 01:50 AM
Y'all need to stay on topic and no more advocating anti-AGW or I will have to close this thread. It seems to be on its last legs anyway.

Gillianren
2010-Aug-06, 02:19 AM
I live in Yorkshire in England. And many areas of the world have broken record lows in the last 30years.

What is the difference between weather and climate?

clop
2010-Aug-06, 03:11 AM
So because the damage is incremental and cumulative in terms of a human lifespan, we shouldn't do anything to stop or reverse the accelerating damages we are causing??

Is this seriously your position?!


I didn't call climate change damage and I didn't say that we are causing it, so I can't answer your question.

clop

Trakar
2010-Aug-06, 11:15 AM
I didn't call climate change damage and I didn't say that we are causing it, so I can't answer your question.

clop

If you deny AGW, then perhaps you should limit your discussion to the ATM board where such alternative woo concepts are more appropriate.

Strange
2010-Aug-06, 11:25 AM
I live in Yorkshire in England. And many areas of the world have broken record lows in the last 30years.

And, as global warming proceeds your winters will likely get colder. Yorkshire currently has much milder weather than, say, Canada at the same latitude. This is likely to change (even if the Gulf stream current keeps going) because of changes to weather systems over the Atlantic (as seen, for example, last winter).

ETA: Note we are talking about trends and averages here. There will still be some warm winters. And maybe even snow in June again...

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Aug-06, 11:19 PM
Interesting... and out here, according to NPR, San Francisco has had a unseasonably cold summer while the cities of San Jose and Redwood City, just broken the record for the coldest July on record. Bay Area Weather Won't Warm Up Soon (http://www.kqed.org/a/kqednews/R201008061104)

Meanwhile, the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat reports that the mean temperature for Sonoma County is
more than 7 degrees below the 50-year average for July and filled with cool evenings and cold nights. In fact, it was the second lowest temperature average for July since 1960, barely warmer than the coolest July in 1987.

The Press-Democrat goes on to report that Warren Blier, science officer for the National Weather Service in Monterey said
Sonoma County is certainly not alone. Similar conditions have cooled cities across the Bay Area. It was the coldest July in downtown San Francisco since 1971, in San Jose since 1958, and in Monterey since at least 1949

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Aug-06, 11:23 PM
And, as global warming proceeds your winters will likely get colder. Yorkshire currently has much milder weather than, say, Canada at the same latitude. This is likely to change (even if the Gulf stream current keeps going) because of changes to weather systems over the Atlantic (as seen, for example, last winter).

ETA: Note we are talking about trends and averages here. There will still be some warm winters. And maybe even snow in June again...
it is also true that some models show that the collapse of the gulf stream would end the current interglacial period and cause the next advance of the ice.

Trakar
2010-Aug-07, 01:43 AM
it is also true that some models show that the collapse of the gulf stream would end the current interglacial period and cause the next advance of the ice.

Possibly, but not likely with the current levels of CO2. Cooler weather at some latitudes and much warmer weather at others. Most current models do not include the likely possibility of a complete thermohaline shut-down. We may get some regional shifts and slow downs, but as our understandings are increasing some of the earlier perceived potentials no longer fit well within the revised models.

One of the largest revisions to our models of this system is the change-over from thinking of this as a single massive belt-current that loops through the world's oceans, into thinking of it as more of a collection of local and regional currents and flows that feed into sea-floor rivers. The overall effect is similar to traditional images, but we end up with a much more robust system that isn't as susceptible to an overall breakdown due to local or regional disruptions. Or, at the least, this is my understanding.

Trakar
2010-Aug-07, 02:05 AM
Interesting... and out here, according to NPR, San Francisco has had a unseasonably cold summer while the cities of San Jose and Redwood City, just broken the record for the coldest July on record. Bay Area Weather Won't Warm Up Soon (http://www.kqed.org/a/kqednews/R201008061104)

Meanwhile, the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat reports that the mean temperature for Sonoma County is

The Press-Democrat goes on to report that Warren Blier, science officer for the National Weather Service in Monterey said

even in the hottest summers it is unusual for the bay area to reach the 80's, just the nature of the beast. Regional trends and fluctuations are not unusual. Just as the bay area has been cool, interior regions around Sacramento, and further south and north have had a very warm summer indeed.

Heat wave breaks records as many seek relief at beaches - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/heat-wave-breaks-records-as-many-seek-relief-at-beaches.html

Heat wave moving from California eastward - http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/18/Heat-wave-moving-from-California-eastward/UPI-35351279427341/

but this is all just weather, not much can be said about it until there is a long enough consecutive run of such to define and describe a trend.