Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 Next
Comments 119201 to 119250:
-
PaulK at 15:34 PM on 16 May 2010Climate sensitivity is low
Riccardo at 01:42 AM on 10 May, 2010 I think it is a bit dangerous for any of us to comment on a paper that has not yet been published. However, on my reading of the article published so far, it does not appear that Spencer is claiming that he can calculate the equilibrium climate sensitivity from his approach. He is comparing the observed response against the statistics FROM THE MODELS OVER THE SAME RESPONSE PERIODS, and thereby suggesting that the models are overestimating the temperature/flux reponse. From this, one can PERHAPS validly draw the conclusion that the models are overestimating the equilibrium climate sensitivity (expressed in temp/flux). It is therefore not valid (or at least not valid until we have seen the paper) to say that "nothing can be said on the overall climate sensitivity". -
thingadonta at 15:15 PM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
Sorry accidental return button typo there, Ill repeat: re#12 Chris: I have to diagree with you here. The term 'local extinction' is a terrible term. It's like partially pregnant. The correct term should be locally absent, or locally displaced, or locally 'not observed in this survey', and so on. There is therefore no connotation of whether the species use to be there or not, whether land use patterns have changed (you dont see any koalas in Sydney CBD) and it also takes the important step in placing a value on competing land use/land use changes. This is the key issue. Nobody cares if there are no koalas (locally displaced/absent, not locally extinct) in Sydney's CBD. Despite the fact the academics dont want us to 'value' a species, in reality this goes on all the time. We don't tear down all the buildings in Sydneys CBD and replace the locally absent koalas, because of purely socio economic reasons. So all species have, like it or not, a socio economic value. This is also why stopping dams simply because of a 'locally absent' fish is limited in scope (I hesitate to say plain wrong) because it doesn't place a overall value on the socio-economic benefits of the dam. Everything has a relative value, and humans chose betweeen them, all the time. Don't get me started on other things, like whether temperate forests have less 'value' because they have less biodiversity than tropical forests, or whether nature somehow favours biodiversity in any case, or whether we should reduce biodiversity in Africa and tropical rainforests to reduce disease rates and malaria, because these are off-topic. But 'local extinction' is not just a semantic issue. Most of the distorted figures on extinction rates are based on such misuses, and abuse of such terms. Academics who just say it is 'semantic', are in effect, protecting their narrow interests and the ongoing charade about extinction rates and the relative value of different species in a whole-of-land use context, with the eg lack of socio economic context in bioregional studies, and the level of overall relative declines/increases of ecosystems as a whole in a broader region in relation to other land uses (such as within the context of increasing urbanisation in Mexico), and so on. 'Locally extinct' is by definition, internally inconsistent, a self-contradiction. I thought skeptics were the ones full of inherant self contradictions and and inconsistencies(ie they haven't yet 'smoothed' out the data to make people feel more comfortable). -
Tom Dayton at 13:41 PM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
HumanityRules, if you're going to trust Wikipedia then you should at least read all of it. There is an entry for Local Extinction. -
HumanityRules at 13:22 PM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
I have to agree with thingadonta. There is no such thing as local extinction. Here's the start of Wikipedia's description of extinction. "In biology and ecology, extinction is the end of an organism or group of taxa. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species" Now Wiki isn't the font of all knowledge but this seems fairly accurate. It's pretty much an all or nothing thing extinction, go to the Red List and you see it used in a very specific way. They'd be looking at maybe 10 years of no sightings before a species is called extinct. This paper in many cases has had 2 people search in a locale for 4hrs before making the call. What happens if local conditions change sufficiently to allow re-introduction of the species into the area? Is this de-extinction? All that is happening is that the word losses any real scientific meaning. But why do this? There is a reason that science uses well defined terms, it gives clarity to ideas. Why abandon that? It really does seem that in this case it's to gain greater publicity for the paper. Call it range change and it might get picked up by New Scientist. Call it extinction and you get yourself an article in the NY Times. This isn't just a semantic arguement. John's headline is an example as how poor definition in the paper leads to headlines that are alarmist in the context of the work presented. I'd contest there are no "Species extinctions happening before our eyes" in context to the work presented. -
Geo Guy at 08:44 AM on 16 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Stephen Baines # 220 ok..mea culpa ..however I sort of wanted to catch you [which I did. ] For arguments sake let’s use your numbers: SO2 = 9 tgms CO2 = 7,200 tgms = 10 million tons = 8,000 million tons Now let’s assume that when only natural sources of the two gases are considered, then acidity is not an issue because both cycles are deemed to be in equilibrium. Therefore the following discussion reflects anthropic sources for the two gases as it is those amounts that lead to increased acidity levels. Now we look at what percentage of the two gases are believed to end up in the ocean. CO2 = 50% (IPCC) SO2 = 85% (the sulphur cycle) Anthropic SO2 emissions for the most part are land based (international air travel and shipping are not included in any statistics), the locale of the sources are important as the prevailing winds tend to carry the emissions out over the oceans. This is true for Asia, India and North America and some sections of Europe/North Africa. The 8,000 million tons therefore needs to be reduced by a factor of 50% to 4,000 million tons. We then need to consider how CO2 is trapped in water. The vast majority of it (85%) is held as a gas molecule surrounds by a water molecule and does not have any impact on the acidity of the water when held this way. The remaining 15% however forms carbonic acid over a long slow process. reference We therefore have to only consider 15% of the 4,000 million tons of CO2. This number becomes 600 million tons. Now we are comparing the 250 million tons of CO2 which forms as carbonic acid in the ocean with 8.5 million tons of SO2 which ends up in the ocean. With Carbonic acid having a pH of 5.7 and Sulphuric acid having a pH of less than 1.0, we then have to take into account the relative acidities of the two solutions to really understand their true effect on ocean water. As you must know, the pH scale is not linear but logarithmic meaning the comparison between two consecutive pH levels is a magnitude of ten and between two measurements separated by a pH it is 100 and so on. Now the difference between carbonic acid with a pH of 5.7 and sulphuric acid having a pH of less than 1.0, the separation of the pH is about 4 so sulphuric acid is close to 10,000 times more acidic than carbonic acid. Under this scenario, the 8.5 million tons of SO2 identified above has the same acidity as 85,000 million tons of CO2 compared to 600 million tons of CO2. Even if we reduce the amount of SO2 that ends up in the ocean to 20%, the 10 million tons is reduced to 1.5 million tons which has the acidity equivalence of 15,000 million tons of CO2. On another note, emissions of international flights and shipping are not included in country or UN data dues to the fact those categories do not require reporting. Hence given that the bunker oil used by ships is perhaps the most polluting fuel used today and those emissions – especially the sulphur, fall directly onto the ocean. Also, remember that emissions during the 1960’s to the mid 1980’s had higher SO2 content than current emissions – the result of clean air acts and the installation of scrubbers in industrial chimneys. Hence the proportion of SO2 to CO2 from those years would likely have been higher than what is portrayed in this analysis. Given that what we see happening in the environment reflects what occurred some 20 to 40 years ago, I then pose the question to you: which gas, when emitted into the atmosphere and then dumped into the ocean will have the greatest impact on ocean acidity? With regards to asphyxiation by CO2, I never suggested such would happen. What I did mention was volcanists working around dormant or active volcanoes are aware of the dangers of CO2 concentrating in depressions. The term sedimentation rate for gases is totally acceptable and is used to asses the rate at which CO2 settles down to the surface of the earth. CO2 is heavier than air and even in the molecular stage will settle rather than rise. Winds will carry it into the upper atmosphere and perhaps there are some other methods by which is rises, however when we are talking ground generated anthropic CO2, a good portion of it settles down to the surface. Perhaps I can use another example – CO detectors are installed at eye level compared with smoke detectors which should be placed near your ceilings. The reason for this is CO is heavier than air and settles down when a fire is smouldering or when combustion in a furnace or fireplace is incomplete. CO2 is heavier than CO hence one would expect the same pattern when CO2 is generated. My comments regarding acid rain were taken out of context by you. It is well documented that SO2 is given off both naturally and artificially and that yes as the acid seeps through grounds and rocks chemical reactions do take place. With regards to weathering, there are two environments to consider – oxidation (above the water table) and reduction (below the water table.). Sulphuric acid can be formed in both environments. The key point to understand is the locale of the sources of acid rain (on the east coast in both Canada and the US), the prevailing wind direction (west to east) is that significant amounts of acid rain have likely been deposited directly into the ocean from these sources. With regards to atmospheric contribution by CO2, again you took my comments out of context. The earth requires CO2 as an essential part of its ability to control climate. We get CO2 from a lot of natural sources, one of which is volcanic activity which ejects large amounts of CO2 into the upper atmosphere. With the high winds located there, that CO2 likely remains there for a long time (as opposed to the CO2 in my breath which comparatively has a shorter time in the atmosphere. One aspect of our atmosphere that seems to be too readily rejected by many is the role jet aircraft has in adding to the CO2 in our atmosphere. Yes I know many have said the amounts are too small to be considered and given the total numbers we are dealing with. Having said that, the growth curve for CO2 in the atmosphere as exhibited by the well known plot from the Mauna Lea Observatory, shows a remarkable increase starting in mid to late 1950’s. Coincidently, the rise in global SO2 emissions follows a similar pattern. Now if we look back to the 50’s the only part of the industrial world that really started to grow was commercial jet flights. Jet aircraft are believed to emit substantially more greenhouse gases than propeller driven aircraft. Jets also fly substantially higher than propeller aircraft so their emissions are spread via the high winds that are present at altitudes of 20,000 to 40,000 feet. Finally according to the UN, emission data for international flights are not known as fuel for those activities do not have to be reported. Hence they are not reflective in the numbers used to describe aircraft contribution to greenhouse gas accumulation. Recently a news article reported that an average trans-Atlantic flight had the same emissions as a car has over a fifty year period. This translates into the same emissions as 18,250 cars in a day. If the average flight is 5 hours, then that jet produces the same emissions as 87,600 cars during the time of the flight. When you multiply this number by the number of daily flights lasting 5 hours, then the significance of these emissions is more apparent. Complicating the issue is the fact about 80% of these pollutant are emitted at high elevations, well above the influence of most clouds and where wind then disperse them in the atmosphere.Moderator Response: Further comments on how well mixed CO2 is, will be deleted from this thread. Please post them on CO2 Measurements are Suspect. Further comments on ocean acidification will be deleted from this thread. Please post them on Ocean Acidification Isn’t Going to Happen. It is fine to post comments on this thread, pointing to your new comments on those other threads. And fine to introduce your comments on those other threads, with links to your comments on this thread. -
Ogemaniac at 08:39 AM on 16 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
I used to live in the same town as Peter, and have met him or heard him speak a few times. He is a great guy. Please give him your support. -
Steven Sullivan at 08:00 AM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
I'm pretty sure even paleontologists refer to classes of organisms having 'gone extinct' in certain areas but not others when the record shows they were once more widespread (e.g., marsupials almost everywhere except Australasia). -
dhogaza at 06:55 AM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
Here's an analogy that might get me banned. But I can't resist the terrible ethics suggested by the "extinction-is-natural" crowd.
It doesn't offend me, but I don't think it's a particularly helpful analogy. How about this: People die all the time, so as Randy Newman sang many years ago, "let's drop the big one, and see what happens ..." I mean ... it's only a rate-of-death difference, right? Nuclear holocaust vs. the background rate of death. Just as we're talking about a rate-of-extinction difference. No biggy. People are going to die anyway. Some will live, others will be born. Your preceeding post was a very good summary of the biology-based position. And quokka's got it exactly right when he says:A couple of comments on this thread do a bit of hand waving about "natural selection", the analogy of "it's all cyclical" in AGW denial...
-
Steve L at 02:49 AM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
Here's an analogy that might get me banned. But I can't resist the terrible ethics suggested by the "extinction-is-natural" crowd. Here goes: The neighbour's daughter comes seeking refuge because her dad is very drunk, and when he gets very drunk, he rapes and beats her. She is offered protection against her dad by a sober host, but this host then rapes her. At trial the host uses, "She was getting raped and beaten anyway, at least I didn't beat her" as a defense. Okay, that's pretty bad. I hope everyone agrees. But in the case of anthropogenic extinction that is being defended, she is getting raped AND beaten by the host, and this is happening at least 10x more frequently. I'm sorry if this is too offensive. Feel free to delete. There's no science in it. -
Steve L at 02:32 AM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
"Extirpation" is a perfectly good word, except that most people don't know what it means. "Local extinction" is much more understandable. It's unfortunate that some people will shorten this to "extinction" because people are bad with details. I tend to find misuse of words to be quite annoying, like when someone confuses endemic with indigenous, but in the case of "extinction" versus "local extinction", it's not a big deal. Here's why: "Local extinction" refers to the extinction of a population. What's a population? It's a group of interbreeding individuals of the same species that is isolated from other such groups. "Extinction" refers to the loss of species. What's a species? Basically it's a population that is sufficiently isolated from other groups to be recognized with a different name. It's a fairly arbitrary line, in practice. What is lost when a species goes extinct? A genetic lineage is lost that can't be replaced by extant organisms, and biodiversity is reduced. What is lost when a population goes extinct? The same thing, but to a degree that our taxonomy won't recognize the loss. There are other ways to argue about species versus population extinction. A metapopulation argument might take the form: "loss of a population is a quantifiable step toward extinction of the others." But these arguments aren't very satisfying. What's important is that there is objective evidence that the tree of life is being trimmed back, and it won't regrow any time soon. If I were a denier, I wouldn't focus on denying the loss of biodiversity -- they're going to lose that argument (as they did with the US Endangered Species Act which now protects unofficial 'species' ['distinct population segments' and 'evolutionarily significant units']). Nope, I would focus on biofunctionality ... niche extinction (or niche extirpation, if you like). Atlantic gray whales go extinct? We can transport Pacific gray whales, and they'll do the same kind of thing. Who needs polar bears? Grizzly bears are pretty similar. It's the same tactic as arguing about species versus populations, but it sets the bar much lower. That's what I would do, if I were a denier. PS. In the sentence that #5 pointed out, John has "lead" when he should have "led". -
Tom Dayton at 01:40 AM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
Argus, read the fourth paragraph in John's post. Carefully. Then read your comment again. -
Riccardo at 01:11 AM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
Thanks John, it's what i suspected but couldn't be sure. ;) Putting aside the semantic issue and the meaning of global or local extintion, the natural rate of extinction is belived to be about 100 to 1000 lower than what we observe now and we're largely (10 to 100 times) above what may be considered a planetary boundary. Still waiting to find a 100 times speed up of speciation ... -
Argus at 00:20 AM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
I would very much like to know also how many new local lizard populations have appeared in new places in Mexico since 1975, during the same time that 12% of old local populations have gone extinct. Somehow, I have a nagging feeling that they have not bothered to to travel around counting those... It doesn't make any headlines. -
quokka at 00:01 AM on 16 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
A couple of comments on this thread do a bit of hand waving about "natural selection", the analogy of "it's all cyclical" in AGW denial, and jump to an extraordinary conclusion that there's no problem or things aren't so bad as some greenies and over zealous scientists would have us believe. Well, they are. Read the WWF Living Planet Report 2008 for the big picture. Based on research by the Zoological Society of London, it reports that the number of land vertebrates has declined 33% since 1970. It is beyond my understanding how this figure is not shocking. Even if we say, divide this figure by two, it is still shocking and manifestly unsustainable. This is just an illustrative factoid, and the whole thing should be read. That biodiversity is under very serious threat is beyond doubt. Currently it's a race to the bottom to see if climate change can overtake existing causes such as direct habitat destruction as the number one cause. -
chris at 23:47 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
chriscanaris at 15:42 PM on 15 May, 2010 I've never really understood that passive acceptance and intellectual rationalisation of species extinction along the lines that.....extinction has always happened; it's natural selection; extinctions lead to new species etc. etc.). It's totally divorced from extant reality, makes no distinction between magnitudes and has an underlying confusion over the nature of speciation, all of which takes it into a sort of inhuman realm. The reality is that species extinctions are occurring at a massively faster rate than the background extinction rates. This has been largely due to habitat destruction and direct extirpation in the past, but global warming is joining these as a combined insult against the natural environment. Since (i) temperatures are rising at a rate that is faster than the ability of many species to adapt, let alone evolve, and (ii) habitat fragmentation has greatly limited the possibilities for migration to compatible habitats, this situation is very likely to worsen. That's the extant reality. To intellectualize this in terms of natural selection and new evolutionary possibilities is to misunderstand the nature of evolution and especially the timescales involved, especially in relation to human timescales. Massive species extinctions during the coming two centuries (say) is not going to result in a plethora of new evolved species adapted to a warmed world. It will lead to a hugely impoverished natural environment. If we became able to stabilise the situation at some time in the future (say 200 years down the road when we will certainly have had to wean ourselves of fossil fuels), the recovery of the natural environment will occur on timescales of thousands to 100's of thousands of years. However intellectually pleasing it might be to consider that interesting long term future, it lacks a human dimension. So I doubt future populations will be so keen on the environmental legacy that the sort of blase acceptance your posts describe would lead to. Personally, I don't think things will develop to such dismal state. -
Riccardo at 23:33 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
It's diffult to me to understand the point of local vs global extintion. Afterall it seems quite obvious. For sure, if not extinct, other terms could be used; for example "disappeared" or "are not to be found", but then what? Aren't they synonyms? Should i not use extint volcano or fire until all the active volcanoes or fires disappear from the earth? English is not my mother language so maybe I'm missing this subtlety. But as far as I can tell it's quite a silly argument.Response: I think the point of the comments on local extinction/species extinction is that if we can get into a trivial debate about semantics, people will be distracted from the fact that animal species are currently being wiped out by warming temperatures all over the world. -
neilrieck at 23:19 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
I hadn't heard of this until yesterday (Friday May 14) when I heard a piece on NPR's program "Science Friday" www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201005141 Then it was covered again today on CBC's program "Quirks and Quarks" www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/09-10/qq-2010-05-15.html Personal Comment: mammals are not naturally attracted to cold-blooded animals but if we get over that bias we quickly come to the realization that these creatures are still an indicator species (indicating that 6.9 billion people are changing the environment). So here is a question for people who are still okay with the extinction of lizards: these creatures eat a lot of insects. When one of our enemies (insects in our crops) looses their enemy (lizards), then we have lost a friend. -
J Bowers at 23:10 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
@ 11 thingadonta Seems to me that locally extinct is distinctly distinguishable from globally extinct. I think you may be picking up more on semantic issues given that local extinction is just another (informal) way of describing extirpation -
chris at 23:10 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
thingadonta at 21:02 PM on 15 May, 2010 thingadonta, light is rarely shed on a subject by ranting. Wouldn’t it help to read the paper before blasting off inappropriately? (i) “local extinction”. This is a perfectly sound and useful descriptor. The observation of the loss of a species from a particular regional habitat allows for a rational analysis of cause (habitat destruction, ecosystem imbalance, climate change, disease etc.). If causal influence(s) are identified then it’s possible to predict what is likely to happen to the same or related species in similar habitats elsewhere in response to similar perturbation. (ii) “warming-induced local extinction”. Not sure what your “blaming it on the CO2 bandwagon” refers to! In reality, Sinervo et al. analyzed populations in 200 sites in Mexico. In these otherwise intact habitats the common element of lizard species loss is a large increase in Winter Spring temperature. The temperature rise and associated local loss of lizard species maps onto the independently determined “climate surface” (i.e. warming map). This association of high Winter Spring warming with local extinction allows for a predictive model. Simply put, one can assess regional Winter Spring temperature rises throughout the world and predict regional habitats where related lizard species will be expected to struggle. This was done and existing and new records of lizard species loss throughout the 5 continents of the world were compared with the predictions. The match is strong. In other words throughout the entire world, global warming, especially enhanced Winter Spring warming is causing the loss of lizard populations. (iii) local re global extinction. Several lizard species are already extinct (globally) during the last 100 years. This may not be due solely or even predominantly to global warming (I’m not an expert in this subject!). However it is obvious that extinctions are generally not “on-off” “here today, gone tomorrow” events (outwith bolide impacts, and mass slaughter; e.g. the final passenger pigeon populations already denuded by habitat loss). Global extinctions, especially under the influence of progressive environmental insult (global warming; habitat fragmentation and destruction) are very likely to be observed locally in advance of progressive spread to other habitats as the environmental impact (global warming in this case) advances. And of course in an increasing number of cases global and local extinctions are synonomous since many species are only defined by a local population – this is increasingly the case as a result of habitat fragmentation. -
John Mason at 22:04 PM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Given Pete my votes! He does a brilliant job! -
thingadonta at 21:02 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
One should never use the term 'local extinction' in any form or context. It is an oxymoron. The day that some over-zealous academic biologists took up the term was a step backward in science and the public understanding of it. If something is only 'locally exctinct', then it is not extinct, by definition. The use of the term should be banned from all biological literature becuase it creates so much distortion and exageration. I have repeatedly come scross this problem in policy circles when various pro-green advocates want to make and enforce various policies based on something that is by definition, not only ambiguous, but variable both in time and space. Without the time and space context, the data gets distorted, misapplied, and misused. Not only does the use of such a term ensure a whole bunch of out of touch academics (whose main job function seems to be to jump on every minutely possible thinly justified exageration of ambiguities), create all sorts of useless exagerations and distortions, but broader society then also suffers from the misuse and abuse surrounding the term. And once the term gets recycyled in various models etc in the fabulous peer reviewed literature system, all hope of anything approaching normality and reality is lost. Ants are locally extinct in my kitchen every day, until the next day, as well as cockroaches, mosquitoes etc etc. The peer reviewed literature is riddled with this sort of nonsense, so many species have been catergorised as threatened, endangered, 'extinct', locally extinct, partially informally locally exctinct, (like informally partially pregnant), and so on, based on oxymorons and such like, that all resemblance to reality has been lost in the confusion. Time and spatial context of both species and broader ecosystem factors has to be applied to any discussion of species decline, but it usually isnt. Populations are dynamic, they decline and increase, they merge and split, but they don't go 'locally extinct', ever, not even once. The same goes for the Mexican paper on lizards. No only does it ignore the issue of local decline, or local 'non-extinction', but it blunders further by blaming it all under the c02 bandwagon. -
HumanityRules at 20:27 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
"Species extinctions happening before our eyes" John is this strictly accurate? Does this paper describe extincts or range changes? I have a real issue with the liberal use of the word extinction in this paper.Response: I had a whole section distinguishing between local extinction (the dying out of a species in a region) and species extinction. I left it out to keep the post streamlined, figuring it would come up in the comments. The 12% of extinctions in Mexico refers to local extinctions. They predicted that local extinctions will reach 39% by 2080. This equates to 20% of total species extinctions. -
J Bowers at 19:32 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
@ #8 chriscanaris No. There is little "wilderness" left in England, but there are plenty of bulldozers. Primate tool use is fine, for example chimpanzees and termites where the termite species is not "tooled" into extinction. -
chris1204 at 19:02 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
J Bowers @ 7 Did no chainsaw or bulldozer ever encroach upon the lands wherein you dwell living in perfect harmony set within pristine wilderness? -
J Bowers at 18:39 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
chriscanaris: "However, extinctions are a reflection of natural selection without which evolution would not occur. More adaptable organisms thrive - the less adaptable decline or occupy specialised ecological niches and are hence vulnerable as conditions change." Do you include rainforest in that, and can I conclude that trees are just an inconsequential victim of the highly adapted organisms known as the chainsaw and bulldozer? -
There is no consensus
Poptech @210, That link failed to address the key flaw in the Petition Project, so you could hardly call it a "complete" rebuttal. Namely, by the standards of the petition, 31000 represents about 0.3% of the targeted population, even with the most generous calculations. -
chris1204 at 17:36 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
doug_bostrom @ 4 Aw, shucks! ;-) -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 17:30 PM on 15 May 2010Are we too stupid?
embb Obviously the measure to punish a defector should hurt the economy of the particular state in proportion to the violation. On the other hand, there is no point in causing major disruption, since the example of Greece shows that the neighbors will have to bail them out anyway. The example of CFCs is also helpful. Not only did the EU start by banning CFCs on their own, but in addition to the Montreal protocol there was a monetary fund set up to help developing economies. I think that makes tremendous sense, which is also why it was decided at COP15. Make the weak economies robust to destabilizing fluctuations during the transition. The developing countries are also not the biggest carbon polluters, while they will feel the biggest impact from global warming. Going to zero CO2-emissions need not cost domestic businesses anything: tax/dividends makes consumers demand less while keeping profits, cap and trade will enable monitoring and force a certain amount of emissions reductions, energy efficiency will increase from labeling appliances, insulating houses and regulating transportation and finally sustainable sources are established on different timescales. We have plenty of examples to back it all up in the real world. I also recommend Peter Sinclair's latest videos, where he mentions that Denmark being the most advanced country in renewable energy is also voted by Forbes to be the best country for business: -
citizenschallenge at 17:17 PM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Yea, too bad we're only given three votes. John, thank you for the heads up on this - was happy to vote for one of my true heros I hope he gets the grant - do let us know. -
yocta at 17:11 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
I'm playing gramarian again... Last sentence:This lead the authors to conclude that that lizards have already crossed a threshold for extinctions.Response: Thanks, fixed the typo. Is 'gramarian' spelt with one m? :-) -
Doug Bostrom at 16:47 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
Chris' comment is probably the most poetic minimization I've ever read. Congratulations, Chris ;-) -
Riccardo at 16:42 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
chriscanaris, the problem is not the interest on any particular specie nor the fear that nature as a whole won't be able to cope with it one way or another. It's the signs and consequences of global warming and if we humans will fare better or worse. -
chris1204 at 15:42 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
I love lizards. In fact, I prefer them to polar bears. They're much more user friendly and much less likely to maul you if you accidentally intrude on their territory. However, extinctions are a reflection of natural selection without which evolution would not occur. More adaptable organisms thrive - the less adaptable decline or occupy specialised ecological niches and are hence vulnerable as conditions change. Extinctions have always happened and will always happen even as new species gradually appear. While the contribution of AGW is undesirable, we should be wary of excessive reliance on what is ultimately an emotive invocation of romanticised illusions about nature. For my part, I'm always fascinated by nature's resilience in the face of the ugliest of human structures - clumps of ferns and moss growing between the bricks of a prison wall spring to mind as does the blue tongue lizard which found a comfortable home underneath a concrete slab in our garden.Response: People have died naturally in the past but that doesn't make murder okay. Just because bad things happen naturally doesn't absolve us of responsibility when we're the cause.
Re nature's resilience, the empirical evidence from this study and past periods of dramatic climate change find that many species simply cannot adapt fast enough when temperatures warm too quickly. -
chparadise at 14:37 PM on 15 May 2010Species extinctions happening before our eyes
What's too bad, is that lizards aren't as photogenic as polar bears or other endangered species. So they can't be used as a mascot for "stop the warming" campaigns, but the best evidence now does suggest that they are in direct danger. -
Marcus at 12:58 PM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Seriously Arkadiusz, if the "skeptic" arguments are so precise, then why have all the major skeptic arguments been so easily debunked? Don't believe me? Well consider: Urban Heat Island effect-debunked (several times). Ocean Oscillation effect-debunked (this one didn't even last long enough for the ink to dry on the original paper). Sunspot Activity-debunked (the paper I read was actually really excellent in showing past correlations between sunspot proxies & temperature proxies-& its to his credit that the Danish researcher behind this paper was one of the first to correct his error regarding the last 30 years). Medieval Warm Period-not debunked, but no-one pushing this has been able to show why natural warming in the past somehow negates the possibility of man-made warming in the modern age-especially given the lack of natural forcings, & how much faster the modern warming period has been. Indeed, I'd argue that the tendency of "skeptics" to rely on ad-hominem attacks & publicity stunts like Climate-Gate & ambit criminal prosecutions highlights the lack of precision in their arguments. Meanwhile, in spite of constant & increasingly ruthless attacks by vested interests, the simple theory that greenhouse gases trap outgoing long-wave IR radiation has stood up strongly-even in a country like the US of A! -
NewYorkJ at 05:34 AM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
I first noticed Peter Sinclair when Anthony Watts tried (and failed) to have his videos removed from Youtube by erroneously asserting copyright infringement. Sorely lacking in the public sphere are good science communicators - those who can present science accurately and concisely to the public. The public domain is littered with dubious contrarian material, severely out of whack with the peer-reviewed literature. Textbook example of a non-sequitur by Arkadiusz: Public opinion on scientific issues is a result of good precise analysis? If only! Creationists must be engaging in good precise analysis that stimulates logical thinking, unlike those propaganda-pushing evolutionists with their simplistic peer-reviewed voodoo science, and elitist academic cred. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Arkadiusz, WUWT comes to mind; as if the carbonic snow thing wasn't enough, now Goddard is arguing that Venus atmospheric temperature is due to pressure instead of GH effect. Some analysis. A comment in the thread compares that with a hair dryer, which, as we all know, heats up the air by compression (!). Precise analysis is raging indeed... -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:31 AM on 15 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
I think Peter's doing a great job taking up the cause of defending science. He really deserves all our support. -
johnd at 03:01 AM on 15 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
re "Moderator Response: As Chris mentioned"........ I understand, ironically these particular off topic exchanges began in response to Chris himself introducing and following up the subject of these exchanges on this particular thread, and for me to post my initial, or any response in another thread may also have effectively tucked it away. Is there any way such initial posts and any replies can be transferred to an appropriate thread by the moderators so that there is no loss of continuity in the debate? I've seen that practised on other forums. -
Steven Sullivan at 01:53 AM on 15 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
It was submitted to NYT as an op-ed, not a letter. -
Steven Sullivan at 01:50 AM on 15 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Berenyi Peter: #46 "What are the timescales involved? I understand slow feedbacks are supposed to operate on timescales from hundreds to thousands of years. But how fast are fast feedbacks? Days? Weeks? Years? Decades? " See, here's where, crazy as it seems, *reading the paper* might help. The term 'fast feedbacks' as used by Lunt et al. is defined in the first paragraph: "[Climate sensitivity] is usually defined as the increase in global mean temperature owing to a doubling of CO2 after the ‘fast’ short-term feedbacks, typically acting on timescales of years to decades, in the atmosphere and upper ocean have had time to equilibrate5" Ref5 is Hansen, J. et al. in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (eds Hansen, J. E. & Takahashi, T.) 130–163 (American Geophysical Union, 1984). HTH. -
tobyjoyce at 23:52 PM on 14 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
JMurphy #10 Arkadiusz Semczyszak #3 I agree with #10. I regularly dip into WUWT and Climate Audit, but I cannot ever find anything like what you would call "a more precise analysis". Pick anything, like Arctic Sea Ice, or Urban Heat Island effect, and you will find the analysis is more obscurantist than precise. Arkadiusz, give us some examples of where the denialist analysis is "more precise" than (to take one) this blog. Here is some more discussion on environmental opinioni polls. http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/13/opinion-polls-underestimate-americans-concern-about-the-environment-and-global-warming/ "... when asked, “What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” 25 percent said the environment or global warming, and only 10 percent picked the economy. In fact, environmental issues were cited more often than any other category, including terrorism, which was only mentioned by 10 percent of respondents." Meanwhile, I am off to vote for Peter Sinclair. -
JMurphy at 23:37 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
Erosion of Lizard Diversity by Climate Change and Altered Thermal Niches I suppose some would say that it doesn't matter or that they will cope somehow ? -
johnd at 22:43 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
chris at 22:04 PM, just to add to my post, one positive outcome from these FACE trials conducted over the last couple of decades, is that varieties that exhibit poor responses to enhanced CO2, such as identified in the trials you referred to, and those that exhibit better responses, perhaps such as those used at Horsham, which interestingly were winter wheat varieties, are able to be identified ahead of time.Moderator Response: As Chris mentioned, these comments on CO2's effects on plant growth really belong in other threads: It’s Not Bad or CO2 Is Not a Pollutant. The valuable info in comments go to waste if other people can't find them. Someone looking for info on CO2's direct effects on agriculture are unlikely to find your comments when they are tucked away in this other thread. And people interested in heat stress (the topic of this thread) must read around your comments on CO2. -
johnd at 22:33 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
chris at 22:04 PM, the length of the Horsham study, 6 months happens to be the life span of wheat from planting to harvesting something that was mentioned, but should have been obvious without it having to be pointed out. I am interested in how the trials you referred to managed to expose wheat to enriched CO2 levels for longer periods, years apparently, and even if they did, what is the relevance to the real world of wheat production? Anyway what is more important protein produced per kilo of wheat or protein produced per hectare? If I am not mistaken, the trials you refer to were conducted with batches of a dozen wheat plants each in sealed plastic boxes all housed in a controlled environment lab and grown hydroponically, thus are hardly comparable to the FACE trial where the plants must interact with the complex soil processes in order to take up the nutrients required for growth. -
JMurphy at 22:30 PM on 14 May 2010Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "Skeptics (especially recently) are more effective - increasingly more efficient (use more precise analysis - instead of propaganda - public relation)." Where is any of that 'precise analysis' ? Can you give some examples ? And you don't believe they use propaganda ? Come off it - you're not being serious, are you ? Or don't you read WUWT ? As for the Gallup poll you refer to (with quotes from ACCUWEATHER ?), a majority still agree that global warming is real (79% say the effects of the problem have already begun, will do so in a few years/within their lifetime, or will happen to future generations); that the warnings are correct or underestimated (49%); that it is human-caused (50%), and believe that most scientists accept that it is a human-induced problem (52%). All those are down, of course, but, after a cold Winter and the efforts of all the so-called skeptics, those figures could have been a lot worse. -
chris at 22:04 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
johnd at 21:38 PM on 14 May, 2010 That's not ncessarily a very helpful study johnd. And it hasn't been published. A problem is in the very short period of their study (6 months). Short term enhanced growth under raised [CO2] reduces over time (desentization or aclimitisation). So longer term FACE experiments in several important crop species shows that initial gains aren't sustained. e.g. to quote from the paper I linked to above: (refering to continually rising atmospheric CO2 levels; my highlights):"Plants could mitigate these changes through photosynthetic conversion of atmospheric CO2 into carbohydrates and other organic compounds, yet the potential for this mitigation remains uncertain. Photorespiration is the biochemical pathway in which the chloroplast enzyme Rubisco catalyzes the oxidation of the high-energy substrate RuBP rather than catalyzes the carboxylation of RuBP through the C3 carbon-fixation pathway (2). Elevated CO2 (or low O2) atmospheric concentrations decrease rates of photorespiration and initially enhance rates of photosynthesis and growth by as much as 35% in most plants (C3 plants). This enhancement, however, diminishes over time (days to years), a phenomenon known as CO2 acclimation (3, 4). Most studies suggest a strong link between CO2 acclimation and plant nitrogen status [for example, (5)]."
and:"In this study, five independent methods affirm that CO2 enrichment inhibits NO3– assimilation in wheat and Arabidopsis plants. The predominant form of N available to plants in most environments is NO3– (6); therefore, CO2 inhibition of NO3– assimilation would lead to lower organic N production. Indeed, this could be responsible for the 7.4 to 11% decrease in wheat grain protein (15, 16) and the 20% decrease in total protein content of A. thaliana (Columbia) (17) observed under CO2 enrichment in FACE (free-air CO2 enrichment) experiments. Because the influence of CO2 enrichment on leaf organic N contents is highly correlated with its influence on photosynthesis and growth (5), it is reasonable to assume that CO2 inhibition of NO3– assimilation and the resultant decline in plant organic N contents play a major role in the phenomenon of CO2 acclimation, the decline of photosynthesis, and growth of C3 plants after long exposures (days to years) to CO2 enrichment."
-
Ned at 21:54 PM on 14 May 2010We're heading into an ice age
mginaus writes: The biology of this planet is good at adapting to changes. That's true, but that adaptation process involves lots of losses (e.g., lots of species go extinct during time of abrupt change). Just because "life as a whole" survived the K-T impact doesn't mean we as one particular species should welcome catastrophic climate change. In addition, we have a huge investment ("sunk costs") in technological and cultural infrastructure built around a relatively stable climate. Here in the US (where I live), a small but long-term change in patterns of precipitation could be hugely expensive, dwarfing the trivial costs of things like the Iraq war or health care. Look at economic impacts of the 1993 or 2008 Midwest floods, or of similar drought years. The West Coast would (will?) incur immense costs if snowpack in the Sierras declines and the regional water infrastructure has to be completely reworked. Etc, etc, etc. As for willingness to change, we're going to have to change anyway, due to the conflict between increasing demand and decreasing availability of oil in the coming decades. Nuclear would help but can't replace oil by itself, at least not in the near future. Switching back to coal will incur huge health and environmental costs, and if continued for the long term it would drive the climate into absolutely disastrous conditions. mginaus concludes: I believe all of us in the scientific community need to [...] start working out what we know and what we still need to know - then we will actually be able to move forward intelligently. Hear, hear! I agree with that, more or less. I'd just add that we know enough already to justify starting making changes now (actually, we should have started 20 years ago...) -- I think John Cook and all the others who contribute to this site have done a great job of summarizing what we do know and what we still need to figure out. -
johnd at 21:38 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
chris at 20:43 PM, as mentioned in the findings of the Horsham trials, such real world trials found increased wheat yields for the CO2 enriched samples averaging 31% with protein levels declining from 18% to 17.3%. Food quality in terms of % protein content may be down, but it is the amount of protein produced per hectare that matters when it comes to feeding the worlds population. -
chris at 20:43 PM on 14 May 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
JMurphy at 20:09 PM on 14 May, 2010 Yes that's right. To quote from the paper I linked to above:"As atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise and NO3 – assimilation diminishes, crops will become depleted of organic N compounds (see Fig. 3), including protein, and food quality wll suffer. Increasing nitrogen fertilization might compensate for slower NO3 – assimilation rates (Fig. 3), but such fertilization rates might not be economically or environmentally feasible."
Prev 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 Next
