backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by overlandpark4m.. on Jun 16 at 8:06 PM

Soil study examine scenarios 2- to 4- times IPCC's "worst case" 2100 warming estimates

Funded by the grants from the National Science Foundation and ARCS Foundation, along with a Ralph J. & Carol M. Cicerone Graduate Fellowship, researchers at the University of California Irvine have been digging into dirt and testing what might happen in imaginative scenarios of a drastically warmed Earth.

I. Study Examines What if Warming Was 4x IPCC Estimates 

Temperatures are currently believed to be a modest 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels, and according to the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will rise between 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) and 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (6.4 degrees Celsius) by 2100.

But the UCI study examined a much more extraordinary warming scenario in which the Earth has warmed either 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) or 36 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius) -- the latter of which represents nearly four times the "worst case" situation the IPCC predicts for the next century.

Soil study
The study's estimates are 2-to-4 times the estimated maximum increases by the IPCC for the next 100 years. [Image Source: PNAS/UCI]

Thus perhaps it's wise to take the study in a bit more in the context of understanding paleoclimatology than discussing present day warming trends.

The study shows that if the woodlands of Wisconsin and North Carolina were to be heated by 10 or 20 degrees Celsius there'd be a steep rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide release from the soil.  At the highest tested temperature increase (20 degrees Celsius above the current temperature), carbon release was bumped eight-fold.

II. Research Try to Draw Tenuous Connection to Current Warming

Despite the fact that the paper's discussed scenarios are well outside the IPCC's predicted warming envelope, the UCI researchers are happy to speculate and reposition them to try to draw a connection to current warming.

Comments Francesca Hopkins a Ph.D candidate in the college's Earth System Science department, "We found that decades-old carbon in surface soils is released to the atmosphere faster when temperatures become warmer.  This suggests that soils could accelerate global warming through a vicious cycle in which human-made warming releases carbon from soils to the atmosphere, which, in turn, would warm the planet more."

soil test
Ms. Hopkins hard at work shoveling dirt. [Image Source: UCI]

Her work was published [abstract] in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S. edition). 

Susan Trumbore of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry and UCI suggests that the results may indicate that trees could become sources of "global warming" rather than fighting them.  States Professor Trumbore, "Our results suggest that large stores of carbon that built up over the last century as forests recovered will erode with rising temperatures."

III. A Load of Dirt?

Some potential issues with the study include that it does not examine dampening effects created by such potential carbon release, such as sea warming shifting ocean currents and/or increased vegetative growth, either of which could have a compensatory effect, either decreasing atmospheric carbon levels or yielding global cooling.

Historically the Earth has heated and cooled multiple times, but has never encountered the kind of "doomsday" "runaway warming" scenario that some more imaginative researchers have predicted.  Every time the Earth has warmed or cooled life has adapted and flourished under the new conditions.

The field of global warming research has suffered in recent years from politicization of the issue and embarrassing email leaks that call into question the integrity of certain research institutions.  

The IPCC, a body of climatologists headed by a chief with no climatology background was also forced to recently recant on some of its more fantastic claims regarding global warming melting glaciers.  The IPCC realized a couple years after publishing those claims in an international report that these potentially eye-catching examples of warming would likely not occur.

Suntanning
Several studies have suggested that there's nothing mankind can do to truly "stop" global warming, so we'll perhaps have to make the best of it. [Image Source: Alaska in Pictures]

A key question is whether mankind can truly "stop" whatever warming is occurring due to human development.  Several studies have suggested we can't, so we may just have to learn to make the best of our slightly more seasonable globe.

Sources: PNAS, University of California Irvine



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

bigger problems
By TSS on 6/12/2012 7:17:17 PM , Rating: 1
There are much bigger problems to the world's soil then global warming. Let's fix the problems caused by the "green revolution" and pumping the ground full with poisons and chemicals first, before we worry about a theoretical hazard.

And yes, it's still very much theoretical. Based on faulty data none the less. The warming since the 80's coincided nicely with the reduction in temperature warming stations around the globe. I'll be damned if i can find that documentairy again but i do remember bolivia didn't have a single station left, with huge reductions in weather stations in siberia as well. Those temperatures are now estimated by averaging the temperature at surrounding measuring stations. The majority of stations left where in easy to maintain areas, such as cities (meaning cost reductions are the culprit once again which didn't suprise me in the least).

Also locations that tend to be a few degrees hotter then the surrounding areas, since all that concrete is harder to cool down.

What's not theoretical is the state of the global economy at the moment and the insanity within the financial world. This is something that will threaten our lives in the next 1-2 years, not 100-200 years. Why is there hardly any reporting on that hmmm? (and don't gimme that "this is a tech site" bullshit. A study on what happens to frickin dirt with global warming or any situation isn't tech news either. Ya want hits, fine. Enough non-tech news that actually matters and gets plenty of hits).




RE: bigger problems
By EnzoFX on 6/12/2012 8:53:42 PM , Rating: 1
It's possible to tackle multiple problems at once. Is that too much for people in denial to handle? Personally I don't know what's worst, people spreading the ignorance, or the ones who believe it. It's a serious problem when people fog the issue towards their bias.


RE: bigger problems
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2012 10:39:29 PM , Rating: 1
"Denial" implies an absolute fact is in dispute. This debate is far from phrasing people as "deniers".


RE: bigger problems
By Tony Swash on 6/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: bigger problems
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2012 4:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
Tony I've been reading your site and I'm very impressed. Thanks for the link!


RE: bigger problems
By ThreatcoreNews on 6/14/2012 9:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Tony - Permission to link to your site from my sources page? http://www.threatcore.com/sources/

You have a lot of good stuff up there. Just remember, the warmists own every side of the argument. Too much, snow - global warming. Too little snow - global warming. The warmists have made the discussion theirs to own. When El Nino builds and we see a record cold winter, guess what? Yep, 'climate change'. Two of the BEST sites on 'global warming' and 'climate change' are WattsUpWithThat.com and ICECAP.us

Keep up the fight, have thick skin, and do what you do best - providing data, not a 'study' from the academia in today's class rooms.

Tom


RE: bigger problems
By Shig on 6/12/2012 11:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
One of the most fundamental issues of the 21st century will be dealing with the laws of thermodynamics and energy use.

The entire industrialized economy of the last 100+ years has been based on coal, oil, and natural gas. These resources are fundamentally finite, yet they are still relatively plentiful and cheap.

The science is concrete, the planet is warming. That really isn't the issue anymore, it's purely economic. A massive switch from fossil fuels would be economic suicide for a modern nation. The real issue at hand is at what rate do you transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Most politics around the world revolve around conservatives saying we shouldn't be shifting at all, we have plenty of fossil fuels, and liberals saying if we don't make massive shifts immediately the world is doomed, and whatever in between. There is still a ton of money to be made on both sides, that's really where we are.

The true pioneers of our time will be the ones who facilitate the change from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy in a profitable way. The science is easy, if you add more CO2 to a closed system, it gets hotter, not hard to understand. Yet when trillions of dollars are at stake, it seemingly gets hard to understand.


RE: bigger problems
By ATX22 on 6/13/2012 12:24:02 AM , Rating: 1
Concrete? So everyone is suppose to ignore the track record of the environmental doomsday predictors, the manipulation of data, the lack of transparency going on, and ignore the money trail that is stinking up the green "science" being thrown out there?

Time and again when results don't come close to the doomsday predictions made, the global warming crowd have to come up with an excuse as to why what happened didn't line up with what was expected to... that's not concrete science... weren't we supposed to be frozen now after the gloomy ice age predictions in the early 1900's? Or around what.. the '70s? All that amid global warming predictions as well? What are people expected to think?

Personally, when a scientific crowd comes to a conclusion on their theory before the data they have supports/proves it, I start becoming skeptical. I have even more trouble trusting them when they are unwilling to weather criticism and make it hard to put their work under scrutiny... and that's not even addressing the manipulation of data that has gone on... That's not how scientists are suppose to operate.

As for as green/renewable energy goes... I only hope that our current and future administrations stop interfering.. a room full of political intellectual "elites" can NEVER come close to solving problems compared to the unwashed masses employing something as simple as trial and error...


RE: bigger problems
By Paj on 6/13/2012 7:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
This is only an issue in the USA. There is minimal debate outside it.

Lol @ 'money trail'. The real money trail is in fossil fuels. 6 out of the top 10 largest global companies by revenue are oil and gas!

The science is solid. If it wasn't, there would be no worldwide scientific consensus. Is it so difficult to believe that the 'opposition' to climate science is driven by astroturfing, conservative thinktanks and powerful commercial interests who have the most to lose?

Oh no! What if we make a better world for nothing?


RE: bigger problems
By maugrimtr on 6/13/2012 8:30:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Despite the fact that the paper's discussed scenarios are well outside the IPCC's predicted warming envelope, the UCI researchers are happy to speculate and reposition them to try to draw a connection to current warming.

Comments Francesca Hopkins a Ph.D candidate in the college's Earth System Science department, "We found that decades-old carbon in surface soils is released to the atmosphere faster when temperatures become warmer. This suggests that soils could accelerate global warming through a vicious cycle in which human-made warming releases carbon from soils to the atmosphere, which, in turn, would warm the planet more."


Damn, Jason - could you make your bias any clearer? The statement from the authors looks...er...logical. Warmer soil, more C02, more warming of soil, etc. Resorting to doubting words to make a rational connection appear wrong is pretty low for a journalist reporting news. Then again, this is technically a blog site... Scientists always reach for possible conclusions - always. There is no exception, ever, to that rule. It's their frickin' job!!!


RE: bigger problems
By Dorkyman on 6/14/2012 12:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
I applaud Jason's article. He's being properly skeptical, which is the appropriate view in light of all the number-fudging that has been uncovered in recent years.

Mann's "hockey stick" was a major impetus behind the Global Warming hysteria, and the hockey stick has been proven to be a fraud. The problem is that by now the AGW theory has matured to become a religion to many, as seriously adopted as any other religion. And every religion requires something called "faith" which means you no longer use logic to support your belief.


RE: bigger problems
By praktik on 6/14/2012 7:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
Actually what is most interesting about AGW is the category error that has been made my most everybody, turning this from what should be an issue, at least in terms of defining the problem, of science.

But it has become one of politics... so while your point on the religion of AGW is well taken, it is myopic to point only to "believers of AGW" as the side that is taking this as "religion".

In fact, being such a polarizing issue it has become religion for *both* sides - and I would say, perhaps just due to my perspective, that the weight of religiousity appears - to me - to be on the anti-AGW side...

At least its there where I see the most naked revelations of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning - and having fought 911 conspiracy theorists for a decade on message boards around the world, I definitely see parallels between Truthers and some members of the Anti-AGW crowd:

-self identity becomes wrapped up in the anti-position, much like truthers brought their trutherism in as a core facet of their identity. Disconfirming evidence is fought with the violence of a rabid dog

-the feeling of being "in on the secret" is common to both groups

- the feeling of there being a secret cabal, wanting to "control us" and "money and power" through their "agenda" (disinformation to spread the "official story" of 911 or disinformation to spread the "lies of AGW") -> the parellels here are many

Of course we could most likely point to facets like this of the other side as well. My main point is really just that having become a political issue, it has become a tribal issue.

And people will engage in motivated reasoning on both sides to retain their beliefs - because it has become not an issue argued by evidence anymore, but of one team against another, one tribe against another - an once it has gone to that level, there will NEVER be a resolution between the extreme positions.

One side just has to be marginalized and spend the rest of their days in the wilderness - my bet is the anti-AGW crowd will look something like Truthers do today in a few decades... at least (an this could be my own bias) it really seems like like the weight of religiousity and motivated reasoning rests on that side the issue.


RE: bigger problems
By praktik on 6/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: bigger problems
By maugrimtr on 6/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: bigger problems
By JediJeb on 6/13/2012 2:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Added to the fact that many Russian scientist also doubt human induced global warming I would say that those against are not an American majority.

Could the difference also come from the fact that many in the general public in Europe have the belief that if the government says something it must be true? There are plenty here in the US that think the same thing, but more and more are questioning that concept.


RE: bigger problems
By Arsynic on 6/13/2012 10:30:49 AM , Rating: 2
Look at the money-trail from the other side in the form of grants. These organizations are backed by socialists-turned-environmentalists who need a new boogey man to scare people into submitting to their wealth-redistribution scam.

How many government grants would be given to scientists who wanted to prove that solar activity is the biggest influence on global temperature? None. Because there's no money to be made with so-called "green" industries such as carbon-trading scams and international wealth redistribution.


RE: bigger problems
By praktik on 6/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: bigger problems
By Paj on 6/13/2012 12:39:25 PM , Rating: 1
You could also examine subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. You know, the wealthiest and most profitable industry in the world? Why does the wealthiest industry in the world need subsidies?

quote:
How many government grants would be given to scientists who wanted to prove that solar activity is the biggest influence on global temperature? None. Because there's no money to be made with so-called "green" industries such as carbon-trading scams and international wealth redistribution.


Maybe because it's not true?

Wealth does need to be redistributed. We grow more than enough food to feed everyone and give them a good standard of living. Yet over half the population live on less than $10 USD a day, while a few hundred men and women hoard billions. Somethings gotta give eventually.


RE: bigger problems
By JediJeb on 6/14/2012 2:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wealth does need to be redistributed. We grow more than enough food to feed everyone and give them a good standard of living. Yet over half the population live on less than $10 USD a day, while a few hundred men and women hoard billions. Somethings gotta give eventually.


So it makes no difference if a person works hard all their life and makes good decisions concerning their finances or if a person sits on their posterior their whole life and makes poor decisions concerning their finances, they should both be entitled to the same amount of money no matter what?

Why not take it farther, do away with money, make everyone live in a house with the exact same floor plan, all wear the same clothing, have the same haircuts, heck lets all have the same names then we would all be equal.

I don't say that the playing field should not be equal for everyone, that is totally different. Everyone should have the same opportunity to advance, but you shouldn't advance as much as someone else if you don't put in the same effort.

Also maybe some of those people who make the equivalent of $10/day($3,650/year) might be better off than someone like me making $45,000/year. They probably even get some weekends off to enjoy themselves more often than I do.


RE: bigger problems
By Paj on 6/15/2012 11:14:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So it makes no difference if a person works hard all their life and makes good decisions concerning their finances or if a person sits on their posterior their whole life and makes poor decisions concerning their finances, they should both be entitled to the same amount of money no matter what?


I'm not talking about subsidising laziness. Of course hard work should be rewarded.

quote:
Why not take it farther, do away with money, make everyone live in a house with the exact same floor plan, all wear the same clothing, have the same haircuts, heck lets all have the same names then we would all be equal.


Nice combination of slippery slope and straw man. That's not what I'm arguing either.

quote:
I don't say that the playing field should not be equal for everyone, that is totally different. Everyone should have the same opportunity to advance, but you shouldn't advance as much as someone else if you don't put in the same effort.


Now were getting there. This is what I am talking about. Currently, not everyone in the world has the same opportunity.

quote:
Also maybe some of those people who make the equivalent of $10/day($3,650/year) might be better off than someone like me making $45,000/year. They probably even get some weekends off to enjoy themselves more often than I do.


Possibly - I've seen people living in what we would describe as poverty who lead perfectly content lives - they have simple needs which are easy to meet, and live their lives responsibly.

But I imagine the citizens in some African countries whose sons get recruited into child armies by warlords, whose daughters get raped and used as slaves, and whose livelihoods are totally destroyed, would disagree. These people are born into situations in which they have no control, who undertake backbreaking labour just to survive, who have very little opportunities, and despite seeking change, their plight is almost completely ignored by the wealthy Western nations. There are millions of people like this all over the world.

These are the people I'm talking about. Call me a bleeding heart, hippy or whatever, sue me for giving a shit about these people.


RE: bigger problems
By praktik on 6/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: bigger problems
By chavo on 6/13/2012 2:09:26 PM , Rating: 1
For the dis-believers - go to the Athabasca glacier in the Ice Fields Parkway in Canada. Note where the edge of the glacier is today. Note in the photo at the visitor center how the glacier used to extend over a mile closer to the visitor center. Also note how the glacier started to recede in the mid 1800's, in the midst of the industrial revolution.

Now, consider that fossil fuels are basically just stored energy from the sun, collected over millions of years and eventually turned into fuel. Consider releasing a lot of that energy over a relatively short period of time (~150 years) and ponder where all of the heat is going from burning (releasing stored sunlight) oil, coal, natural gas, etc.

Is it possible for the continual burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels for decades to not have a warning effect?


RE: bigger problems
By BSMonitor on 6/13/2012 2:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
They aren't disbelievers. Guys like Reclaimer simply use the most rudimentary bit of reasoning to blanket enormous debates/facts/arguments into his own simplistic mentality.

His rationalizations are completely based on his simple view of the world and characterizing EVERYTHING into a 1 + 1 = 2 thought process.

FACT. 20,000 Years ago, most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered in ice. The planet has been continually warming since. The glaciers would have completely receded (or not) without human involvement. They have retreated and progressed off and on for millions of years.. The debate is whether burning fossil fuels is speeding the process. Or preventing any possible return to an ice age that might have happened otherwise. But to say that there is no effect, is foolish and scientifically not possible.

The earth is one giant chemical reaction. Infinitely complex. No one cause would affect the entire planet universally. But all are intertwined. However the amount of exothermic energy released by burning fossil fuels is no where near the amount of energy reaching us from the sun. Like a thimble against the ocean.

The effect of removing trees and other plants/algae that consume CO2 and increasing the amount of CO2 by burning fossil fuels could have the effect however of speeding the warming process that is naturally occurring. That of creating an even greater greenhouse effect than should normally be happening. Similar to what happened on Venus, a run away greenhouse.

Now, fortunately the Earth is much more diverse and balanced than Venus. Processes that occur naturally could counter the greenhouse effect. And have. Super Eruptions. Minute variations in the orbit, moving us closer or further away from the sun. Flipping of the magnetic polls. Asteroid/Meteor crashes.

The planet will cool again eventually. The only question is will it still be habitable for most of the current species before that happens.


RE: bigger problems
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: bigger problems
By JediJeb on 6/14/2012 3:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The effect of removing trees and other plants/algae that consume CO2 and increasing the amount of CO2 by burning fossil fuels could have the effect however of speeding the warming process that is naturally occurring. That of creating an even greater greenhouse effect than should normally be happening. Similar to what happened on Venus, a run away greenhouse.


I wonder though how much our burning of fossil fuels is offset by man's attempts to stop things like wildfires which without our intervention could potentially burn off a vastly larger portion of our forest and grasslands than we allow now. Is the CO2 emitted from those fires offset by the smoke, or are we reducing the CO2 in any large amount by preventing these things?


RE: bigger problems
By JediJeb on 6/14/2012 11:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it possible for the continual burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels for decades to not have a warning effect?


Is it also not possible that the Earth is right now in a colder than normal period and it is only returning to what is a more normal temperature? Just because the current climate is suited specifically for humans to flourish doesn't mean that the climate is at its optimum for the planet overall. If that is true then melting glaciers are the least of our coming problems as a species.


RE: bigger problems
By kattanna on 6/13/2012 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The science is easy, if you add more CO2 to a closed system, it gets hotter, not hard to understand


True, but your overlooking a very important fact, the earth is not a closed static system.

Energy flows in and out in very dynamic ways


RE: bigger problems
By Paj on 6/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: bigger problems
By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 12:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well... you're not entirely right. CO2 can "leave" the Earth, in the sense that it can no longer be available to partake in the climate cycle. This permanent (as permanent as one can get over geological time anyways) happens by sequestering CO2 on the ocean floor as mineral deposits.

Interestingly, Earth has a lot less CO2 now than it did in previous geological epochs (Devonian, Cretaceous). This is also shown in the plant stoma counts, where plants today are actually adapted to CO2 levels far above today's measure. In fact, we are pretty perilously close to the 140 ppm below which plants can no longer uptake CO2, and the surface life of the planet will basically die. While we have been releasing hidden ground stores of carbon and turning it into CO2, it hasn't actually added that much to the system per se, especially if we are at the halfway point to running out as some say?


RE: bigger problems
By Paj on 6/13/2012 1:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Im not sure where you're getting your info from, but its pretty badly wrong.

Atmospheric CO2 readings in ppm are closer to 400, not 140. They've increased by roughly 80ppm in the last 50 years.

NOAA is a US agency, by the way.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/


RE: bigger problems
By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
I know it's close to 400, which is not far from 140 in comparison to past epochs where CO2 was well over 1000 ppm. That was my point.

There's a reason greenhouses pump the CO2 levels to around 2000 ppm for plant growth, and no it isn't for heating. 400 ppm is hard on plants to get by, from a biological standpoint. It's like you being up on a mountain where the oxygen is thin.


RE: bigger problems
By JediJeb on 6/13/2012 2:32:06 PM , Rating: 3
What if normal CO2 levels for the Earth are actually supposed to be much higher than they are now? Maybe we are simply living in a period that happens to be supremely suited for human life yet is actually at one of the extreme ends of the scale for what is normal to the planet. We keep throwing out that CO2 levels are higher now than they were 100, 200, 500 years ago, but what about 1,000,000 years ago? Thinking that current levels are abnormally high based on a few hundred years of trends over several billion years of history is not good science. If that is true, then governments do not want to hear that, because it means there is going to be a change coming they can not handle or control. Governments love the idea that man is causing climate change because if that is true they can simply make rules to stop it, if nature is causing it then they are now powerless. Never underestimate the desire of people in power to want to maintain their power, or at least maintain the illusion they have power as much as possible.

From the simple statement in the article that warming air cause release of CO2 from the soil(which is also true of the oceans) it would also be correct to say that if the planet was warming from a normal occurrence or even from changes in solar activity then those CO2 levels will rise in response to the warming, whether the high levels are causing the warming or not. Levels of CO2 have been many times higher in the past and life survived and even flourished. Maybe the Earth is supposed to be warmer and there is not supposed to be any ice at the poles. There is evidence of dinosaurs on the north slope of Alaska, so that area was much warmer at some point in time.

Maybe it is the ultimate display of man's arrogance to believe that how the Earth is right now is how it is meant to stay forever, because it suits us perfectly.


RE: bigger problems
By Paj on 6/14/2012 7:38:40 AM , Rating: 1
All life on earth currently is adapted to its current environment, including humans, and the food we grow as crops. Change the environment too rapidly, as is happening now, and organisms will die. Previously arable land will become desert.

Sure, you could argue that there isn't meant to be ice at the poles. Any idea what effect this might have on the climate, rainfall, seasons? Increase global temperatures and you increase desertification, habitat loss, and decrease biodiversity. The science of this is pretty much bulletproof, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. New organisms will take their place, maybe, probably. Evolution will carry on. But how long would it take? Do you want to be around while it does? It wont be fun.

Governments hate the idea of climate change, which is why they are doing very little about it. It's too hard to fathom, so they distract people with wars and other bullshit.


RE: bigger problems
By JediJeb on 6/14/2012 2:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, you could argue that there isn't meant to be ice at the poles. Any idea what effect this might have on the climate, rainfall, seasons? Increase global temperatures and you increase desertification, habitat loss, and decrease biodiversity. The science of this is pretty much bulletproof, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. New organisms will take their place, maybe, probably. Evolution will carry on. But how long would it take? Do you want to be around while it does? It wont be fun.


So why is it that when CO2 levels were over 1000ppm during previous periods in geologic history we did not have a desert Earth? In many of those periods we had instead vast lush forest and swamps which is where our current supply of fossil fuels came from. There are computer models that show both things happening as the outcome, yet only the doomsday one makes the headlines. The science that the Earth will become a vast desert is not bulletproof, it is only one outcome from a computer model and as with most models it is only as accurate as the data placed into it. Most computer models ten years ago said we would already be much warmer than we are now, so if they were wrong so could the desertification ones be also. Anyone who says any science is "bulletproof" is the person lying, since all science changes somewhat as new data is discovered. Only politicians deal in absolutes because it gives them a perfect justification for what they do.


RE: bigger problems
By ppardee on 6/13/2012 1:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
By the same token, CO2 doesn't just appear from nowhere. By burning fossil fuel, we're not creating new CO2, we're simply putting it back into circulation (and there are those who argue that this is the single most constructive thing we can do for the future of life on Earth.)

The re-absorption rate isn't static. As more CO2 becomes available, plant life increases (as seen in the arctic with algae) to take up that excess.

More importantly, we're not seeing the increases in temperature predicted. The so-called hockey stick graph should show a huge increase in temperature and I certainly haven't seen it.

A large number of scientists have the same idea about something and that idea is incorrect. This doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, it just means they're all wrong. It happens all the time. All it takes is a quick look at the history of science to see that consensus does not equal correctness. You can't use the conspiracy straw man to dismiss the fact that you can't have objective science when you get your funding from environmental groups (which removes the 'objective' part) and ignore contrary indicators (which removes the 'science' part).


RE: bigger problems
By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 1:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
A good example of your last paragraph is when science thought the speed of light was infinite, or unmeasurable. That was the consensus of the day, and it took a lot of work and many years to overturn it.

Or when science believed living matter was different than non-living matter, and it took a lot of work synthesizing organics from inorganics to finally overturn that.

Or that the sun orbited the Earth. Or that fungi were plants.

At no point were people ignorant. They had plenty of observations and evidence to support all those ancient hypothesis during their day--it was all reasonable and factually based. It was the addition of new, controversial evidence and facts that overturned such things and allowed science to advance to the next level (old facts reinterpreted in the light of new ones). No where did the process go awry; science is just meandering, and we only know as much as our best ability to observe or experiment allows us to.

Still, it's hard to be humble in that regard while still trying to debate knowledge and the "bigger picture".


RE: bigger problems
By NellyFromMA on 6/13/2012 1:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like all of those climate change scientists that were caught collaborating and butchering the peer review process for fear of losing funding if not going with the bias of those funding?


RE: bigger problems
By kattanna on 6/13/2012 10:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are much bigger problems to the world's soil then global warming. Let's fix the problems caused by the "green revolution" and pumping the ground full with poisons and chemicals first, before we worry about a theoretical hazard.


agreed. I'd really like to get the focus back on REAL pollution.


RE: bigger problems
By Ammohunt on 6/13/2012 6:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to agree again lets worry about immediate problems like facist rogue nations and Marxist revolutionaries trying to turn the west into another set of third world nations these types of "effects" are impacting the world now.


RE: bigger problems
By praktik on 6/13/2012 6:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I tend to agree again lets worry about immediate problems like facist rogue nations and Marxist revolutionaries trying to turn the west into another set of third world nations these types of "effects" are impacting the world now.


Wow Im glad i wasn't taking a sip of a drink when I read this!!

Marxist revolutionaries? Did you type that with a straight face, or was it intended as some kind of Colbert-esque satire??


RE: bigger problems
By Ammohunt on 6/14/2012 10:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
Know who Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Van Jones, Valerie Jarret, Carol Browner and Bill Ayers to name a few are? hint they are share something in common...step out of your bubble a look around once in a while.


RE: bigger problems
By praktik on 6/15/2012 7:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
Oh ya? Step outta my bubble and into yours?

No thanks! I got enough on my plate without having to worry about an impending Marxist revolution...

Holy crow did I wake up in 1956 or something??


RE: bigger problems
By Paj on 6/15/2012 11:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
Morales? An elected public official?

This man is a bigger threat than global warming?

The US really is going downhill.


RE: bigger problems
By praktik on 6/15/2012 12:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
Thats why the original comment was so funny:

"AGW? Lets worry about a REAL issue like unicorn extinction!"

Which is about as much of a threat now as "marxist revolutionaries"

hahahaha


RE: bigger problems
By overlandpark4me on 6/16/2012 8:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, stop posting coherent statements. The clones won't like it.


This statement is patently false
By juserbogus on 6/13/2012 10:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every time the Earth has warmed or cooled life has adapted and flourished under the new conditions.


Many extinction events including the worst in the history of the earth are a result of climate/atmospheric change. The "life" at those times did not flourish and most did not adapt.




RE: This statement is patently false
By kattanna on 6/13/2012 11:26:37 AM , Rating: 3
using the timeline of the planet, geologic timelines, he is quite correct.

nature has thrown the world some massive blows from snowball earth to the Permian extinction, and others. Yet life has survived and flourished under the new conditions found shortly afterwards each event, geologically speaking.

We are not yet capable of "killing the planet" as some think. Though we are quite capable of killing ourselves. The planet will get over it and mostly not even notice our passing.


RE: This statement is patently false
By juserbogus on 6/13/2012 11:42:22 AM , Rating: 2
That was not my point. all climate scientists know the planet will continue and life will survive, that is not the issue and has not been. The point of taking action is to retain a livable climate for the life that exists now and to keep change slow so that life has a better chance to adapt.


By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 11:48:11 AM , Rating: 5
K/T boundary was an asteroid. Younger Dryas was an asteroid (by multiple independent indications). Permian, unknown but likely another celestial event.

What mass extinction was not due to a cataclysm? Climate change is slow (as is anything that happens over generation time). Asteroid strikes or volcanic eruptions (as wiped out the camels and rhinoceros of ancient Washington State) are the only things fast enough to wipe out whole sale species before they have a chance to adapt.


RE: This statement is patently false
By JediJeb on 6/13/2012 3:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point of taking action is to retain a livable climate for the life that exists now and to keep change slow so that life has a better chance to adapt.


But this is the problem with the current belief in AGW. Believing that how the world is now, is how we should force it to be. If man tries to fight the course of nature he will lose. The best course of action is to adapt to the changes.


RE: This statement is patently false
By testerguy on 6/14/2012 4:55:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But this is the problem with the current belief in AGW. Believing that how the world is now, is how we should force it to be. If man tries to fight the course of nature he will lose. The best course of action is to adapt to the changes.


1 - We like the earth how it is now. If we could force it to, we'd make it stay like this forever. Any change to that could threaten our existence. The natural cycle of the earth doesn't care about human survival.

2 - You say if we try to fight the course of nature, we will 'lose' - how do you know, have we tried? What is certain is that if we don't change the course of nature and nature decides to not present us the ideal conditions we have now, we could face mass extinctions.

3 - Best course is to 'adapt to the changes'.... sorry but that's a last resort. If we can't control our environment and environment is uninhabitable for us, our last hope is to artificially 'adapt' technology to help us survive, but it's not a sustainable approach and it's not a long term solution.


By JediJeb on 6/14/2012 3:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2 - You say if we try to fight the course of nature, we will 'lose' - how do you know, have we tried? What is certain is that if we don't change the course of nature and nature decides to not present us the ideal conditions we have now, we could face mass extinctions.


One example is with engineers trying to stop the Mississippi river from changing course as it does on occasion. They build jetties to reduce silt, make walls to try to guide it in the same path and yet it still makes shifts in the channel from time to time. We build cities that are below sea level then spend fortunes to try to keep the sea out, then something like hurricane Katrina happens and good portion of a city is flooded out, that was a losing battle and instead of learning from the mistake we just build back in the same place waiting for it to happen again. Around the Ohio river where I live, people continue to build their houses very near the river, and every 10 years or so a flood comes and wipes them out. It is funny how the old houses build 100 years ago survive because back then people were smart enough to build on high enough ground to avoid the floods, now people build as close to the river as they can, and complain when they get flooded out.

quote:
3 - Best course is to 'adapt to the changes'.... sorry but that's a last resort. If we can't control our environment and environment is uninhabitable for us, our last hope is to artificially 'adapt' technology to help us survive, but it's not a sustainable approach and it's not a long term solution.


If we can't control THE environment, which we can't outside our buildings, then adapting is not only a last resort but is the long term solution. If humans did not adapt to the natural climate, we would still be congregated in the equatorial regions of the world and nobody would live in Alaska, Siberia, Mongolia, or many other places around the world.

quote:
1 - We like the earth how it is now. If we could force it to, we'd make it stay like this forever. Any change to that could threaten our existence. The natural cycle of the earth doesn't care about human survival.


Very true on all accounts. It is why we are fighting the changes taking place, but are we putting our efforts into a fruitless fight to control the climate when we could be getting a head start on adapting to the changes?


RE: This statement is patently false
By ATX22 on 6/13/2012 4:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
And to what degree do we have the ability to actually affect global climate?


RE: This statement is patently false
By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 11:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
Other than the Permian (which remains a complete mystery), all the mass extinctions we know of have to do with a cataclysmic event (asteroid strike, super volcanoes). Even now, new very strong evidence has come up showing the Younger Dryas extinctions (the megafauna like the mammoths) were due to an asteroid, not climate change, and not even people (the very wide spread clovis culture was also wiped out at the same time).

So, where are you getting this claim you speak of? Geological history certainly does not support you in any way.


RE: This statement is patently false
By juserbogus on 6/13/12, Rating: 0
By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 12:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know what happens when a sizable asteroid or super volcano goes off? Have you heard the term "nuclear winter"? While such a thing can't actually be done with nukes, the concept is the same. Climate change has been barely perceptibly happening for over many decades--an asteroid strike changes the world climate -in a day-. How are those things comparable? Yes, everything is not immediately wiped out that very instant, but when you go from the much hotter than today Cretaceous climate to a suddenly frigged, ash filled climate the day after an asteroid impact, how are animals like dinosaurs supposed to survive? Their food is wiped out, and they starve, as plants aren't going to do well in ash and cold; especially when they have not prepared as per the seasonal changes.

Cataclysmic events are something that change everything radically within a single generation. Slow events like climate change go over many generations, giving biology plenty of time to adapt through epigenetics, population allele frequencies, and direct DNA changes ultimately.

Also, you should realize something. All the mass extinctions occurred along with extreme cooling of the planet. No mass extinctions occurred when there was warming of the planet. It's important to think for a bit, instead of sitting around and drowning in 2012 like hysteria.


Nice Read
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Read
By kattanna on 6/13/2012 9:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
supposed melting of the glaciers causing sea levels to catastrophically rise.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/12052...

here is a story about finding photographic plates from the 1930 that clearly showed massive melting of greenlands glaciers

quote:
Taken together, the imagery shows that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today


yet.. all we hear is about how "unprecedented" the melting is today


RE: Nice Read
By praktik on 6/13/2012 10:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
That story does not support your claim that concerns about glacial melting TODAY are allayed by what happened between 1933-1934.

Another example of confirmation bias at work - look for the facts that support your conclusion and ignore facts that muddy the water, like (from the story):

- "In the 1930s, fewer glaciers were melting than are today, and most of those that were melting were land-terminating glaciers, meaning that they did not contact the sea."
- "Still, more glaciers in southeast Greenland are retreating today, and the average ice loss is 50 meters per year. That's because a few glaciers with very fast melting rates -- including one retreating at 887 meters per year -- boost the overall average."

I could read that same article and use it to support an opposing claim, noting the significant differences between today's glacier melt and the melt in the middle of the 30s, and the article's quote "And we've confirmed that glaciers are very sensitive indicators of climate," and say that the study shows how today's melt IS a concern and a confirming sign of a warming trend that we should be worried about given "the glacial retreat is dominated by marine-terminating outlet glaciers, the melting of which contributes to sea level rise."

Selecting only those facts which make your case might convince yourself and others who self-identify as fellow members of your "team" - but you will not win new converts or convince people on the other side given they can easily spot these signs of motivated reasoning and discount your claims.


RE: Nice Read
By kattanna on 6/13/2012 11:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
WOW.. you read a whole lot more into what i said then i did. thanks!

all i said was that the claim of unprecedented melting isnt quite true. nothing more, nothing less.

next time instead of trying to tell me what I think..to support your own views it seems..how about you ask me directly?

or are you not prepared for rational dialog?


RE: Nice Read
By praktik on 6/13/2012 12:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
WOW.. you read a whole lot more into what i said then i did. thanks! all i said was that the claim of unprecedented melting isnt quite true. nothing more, nothing less. next time instead of trying to tell me what I think..to support your own views it seems..how about you ask me directly? or are you not prepared for rational dialog?


I am prepared for rational dialog, but worry given the last question that perhaps we have not recognized each other as rational agents. So perhaps my preparedness is not matched by an equivalent readiness if it is so easy for you to slip into imagining I am an irrational individual.

I am also unsure what you used in my post to support that last sentence given that this quote from the article:

quote:
Taken together, the imagery shows that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today


you said:

quote:
yet.. all we hear is about how "unprecedented" the melting is today


I think it was a fair inference that you saw this article as supporting evidence for a claim that current concerns about glacial melt are overblown.

This is not mind-reading, it is simple interpretation of your words - which - encouraged that understanding. I then proceeded to demonstrate how alternative interpretations of the article were possible, and that your claim (even your revised claim) rests on shaky ground based on that article.


RE: Nice Read
By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 12:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am prepared for rational dialog, but worry given the last question that perhaps we have not recognized each other as rational agents. So perhaps my preparedness is not matched by an equivalent readiness if it is so easy for you to slip into imagining I am an irrational individual.


That is some high and mighty sounding language you are using there. I can understand the need to express your reasoning and mental state, to explain the context of your commenting, but seriously. It doesn't always help ones case to sound esoteric. A rational mind does not need that.

The point of the pictures discovered was it showed the glaciers back in the 30's had retreated -father than- the glaciers currently are today. That is, Greenland has bigger glaciers and more ice now than it did in the 1930s.

Add to this the constant finding of tree stumps being revealed by retreating glaciers (how did the trees grow there if it was always covered in ice?), and the Viking settlements that are being re-exposed (some are still under ice), and it changes the whole context of the warming of today.

Nor do we know the rates of melting back then to compare our current rates with. We can guess, but we don't know. All we do know is that Greenland has melted a lot more in the past than it has melted now.

The other point of the 1930's reveal, and papers on this matter, has been to show that glacier melting radically slows once glaciers retreat to a certain terminal spot on the mainland. While the glaciers are near the ocean edge, they can melt far faster, but once they reach their inland beds, that speed dramatically slows. Consequently, the lessons that were being derived from the historical data, are that the melting rate of Greenland will decrease (as is happening already) as glaciers get farther away from the sea. Or put another way, at the moment the glaciers are extended to the point where they can rapidly melt, but once they shrink back to their "proper" positions, that will slow.

I think that was really the take home message, from reading the synopsis of that paper.


RE: Nice Read
By kattanna on 6/13/2012 1:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am prepared for rational dialog, but worry given the last question that perhaps we have not recognized each other as rational agents.


It is my pleasure to meet you then

quote:
I think it was a fair inference that you saw this article as supporting evidence for a claim that current concerns about glacial melt are overblown.


As someone who has actual science training, I get annoyed at the outlandish claims made by some, though usually its claims being made by "reporters" who do not understand the science papers they claim to read. cosmology and geologic history are 2 areas that I particularly enjoy. I know full well the vast and varied history of our planet itself.

we still have to reach the max temp the planet experienced from the previous interglacial. so our current warming is not something that should be shocking. Our we helping it along, thats entirely plausible, though not a dominate forcing. And most of that I would want to say is due to our land uses and how it has changed the albedo of the planet itself. We have most certainly changed local regional climates with our cities and the like, so its not a great leap to say we are also changing the climate globally. the question is, how much?

CO2 in and of itself is not an issue, especially at the geologically historic low levels it is at. In fact it has been shown that the planet itself is getting greener precisely because of this, which is good.

With or without us, the planet will most likely continue to warm as geologic history has shown and that will mean higher sea levels and a higher Ph for the oceans, but it is not "unprecedented" as you see brandied about in the media. Nor is it likely something we are yet able to control, even if we wanted to. Some of the "solutions" some have come up with to stop the planet warming are down right terrifying. It also makes me chuckle how some have conveniently deemed that how the world was in the mid 1800's is how the world should stay. really? The world has never been static and unchanging.

One thing that has annoyed me for some time is the environmental movements change of focus from actual pollution of the air, water and land, which is a REAL issue to trying to demonize CO2.

should we be changing our energy usage to a cleaner and less polluting source, oh god yes, but once again CO2 isnt the reason. There is enough crap generated by our current energy sources of coal and oil that are genuine pollutants to want to change from those.

now to your question. Do I think the current rate of melting of the greenland glaciers is something to worry about? No, though we should most assuredly be monitoring. At the current rate of melt it is not adding all that much to our rising seas, thermal expansion is actually adding more.

our shorelines are going to change, thats a given. so why worry about something we know is going to happen when we could be preparing ourselves to deal with it? Also the continuous "prophecies of doom" only give those less educated something to cling to as reason why to do nothing. As we are seeing all to abundantly currently.


RE: Nice Read
By praktik on 6/13/2012 2:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is my pleasure to meet you then


Likewise! ;)

quote:
As someone who has actual science training, I get annoyed at the outlandish claims made by some, though usually its claims being made by "reporters" who do not understand the science papers they claim to read......With or without us, the planet will most likely continue to warm as geologic history has shown and that will mean higher sea levels and a higher Ph for the oceans, but it is not "unprecedented" as you see brandied about in the media


On this we will find some whole-hearted agreement. While I am not trained in science I am something of a science "hobbyist" and the sad state of science "journalism" is something that is *also* a pet peeve of mine.

What I find myself more interested in lately though is human psychology and related issues as they pertain to motivated reasoning - and I found that this article on global warming was an interesting Rorschach test whereby people would draw the conclusions they preferred from the summary in the article. There was another example after your own on your side, and I already outlined how one could use the *same* article to arrive at opposing conclusions.

Sloppily written articles will end up exacerbating this - straying from the science, and often the conclusions of the very studies they are reporting - and providing points in their writing that others can exploit to drive their particular hobby horse with their tendency to sensationalize.

quote:
One thing that has annoyed me for some time is the environmental movements change of focus from actual pollution of the air, water and land, which is a REAL issue to trying to demonize CO2.


We can also agree, to some degree, on this. However I do like the idea of a precedent being set by setting a carbon price. Industries right now are disconnected in large part from their effects on the environment through legislative holes in our police, lax enforcement and priority given to shareholder value over responsibility to the community these companies rely on to thrive.

Seen in this sense, carbon taxes and the like can be seen as a useful corrective step to assigning some of the true cost of corporate activities to the corporations conducting them.

If I had my druthers carbon would be the first step among many more to come after.

We can't be upset at companies causing environmental damage when they have no incentives not to.


RE: Nice Read
By zaraleth on 6/13/2012 9:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well said :)

I also agree that actual pollution is what environmentalist should be worried about. That and saving the polar bears...other wise what would coca-cola use in their ads.


What a laugh!
By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 11:40:35 AM , Rating: 6
This paper is hilarious.

So, they suggest that at much higher temperatures (20 C above the current average 12 C or so) that soil microorganisms will accelerate their growth and metabolism, digesting and thus releasing more CO2. This is not a surprise. We culture bacteria at 37 C for exactly this effect, it's what incubation is all about.

But while they look at that one half of the carbon cycle, what about plants and trees that make up the other half? If we are to presume that trees are thermometers and can be used to reconstruct past temperatures using their tree ring widths, then as temperatures went up, tree growth and CO2 utilization would also go up. So while more CO2 would be decomposed out of soil, more CO2 would be taken up be trees and foliage.

So, what then would be the net flux? Probably a wash. The out rate and the in rate would both go up, and so the real effect of rising temperatures is just to speed up the carbon cycle: faster growing plants, faster decomposition to support those faster growing plants. For us, it would be an agricultural miracle.

Any kineticist would have thrown this paper out on its face during peer review, for taking one half of a cycle and trying to make such grand sweeping claims. So how did something so logically deficient make it through the peer review system? Well, how did the recent Gergis et al. paper do so, only to be discovered in the blogsphere has having flawed data processing and thus being pulled from the journal it was published in and put on hold?

Papers that are in line with the global warming meme definitely get a fast track through, no matter how bizarre or absurd the details are. Like this one, which takes what we've always known about microorganisms and the carbon cycle, tosses out the whole other half of the cycle, and then make doomsday proclamations.

But think about this: how much hotter is soil during summer than winter in Wisconsin? Probably by about 20 C. And do we see this sudden doomsday change in the carbon cycle? Nope. Because it's in the summer that all the plants take off, growing wildly, and absorbing all that carbon and more. But hey, don't let the authors or peer reviewers here realize that.




RE: What a laugh!
By steme on 6/13/2012 7:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked the several billion people on this planet were cutting down the other half of the carbon cycle. Just a fraction of Americans alone have managed to cut down almost every single tree once. Not that I am saying most of them didn't grow back. Its just we have billions of people on this planet that want to live in a concrete jungle, and drive a car.


RE: What a laugh!
By zaraleth on 6/13/2012 9:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
The only solution is to make all transport lines underground.
And change the roads into orchards

On the plus side, you don't have to worry about rain/snow when all transit is under ground. :)


SDFWEF
By sdfkwejiun on 6/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: SDFWEF
By ct760ster on 6/13/2012 3:49:29 AM , Rating: 2
SPAM BOT


RE: SDFWEF
By leviathan05 on 6/13/2012 9:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
What is the drawing supposed to be?


RE: SDFWEF
By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 11:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like a derpy rose to me.


LETS SEE
By lenardo on 6/13/2012 11:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
lets see, human emissions of CO2 are 4%(roughly) of all co2 emissions in the world...so 96% of the co2 produced annually is ...natural(and the ratio is pretty much staying the same btw)

so if soil emits more co2 the warmer it gets, it means the vegetation also gets more co2, which means the plants grow faster. If the plants grow faster, they absorb more co2, which will then get re-sequestered in the plant material, which should -essentially-come close to balancing out the increased co2 from the soil...

but that would mean, increased crop yields, more food for animals herbivore AND carnivore (more food for herbivores= more live= more food for the carnivore)




RE: LETS SEE
By geddarkstorm on 6/13/2012 12:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hence why that hottest periods in Earth's past, like the early Devonian and the Cretaceous, also have the most abundant amounts of life and diversity of species.


RE: LETS SEE
By ppardee on 6/13/2012 1:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa there, tiger! Don't start bringing facts into this!

I have a feeling that 4% doesn't include agricultural emissions (due to live stock, for example), but even then it's a small portion.

Also, did you know that CO2 comprises about one third of one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere? And as a percentage of our atmosphere the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is one tenth of one tenth of one percent?

That is, currently CO2 is about 0.03% of our atmosphere and increased to that from around 0.02%. So the increase is 0.01% Do we really think that adding one hundredth of a percent of ANYTHING to our atmosphere is going to cause massive climate changes?


you forgot...
By MadMan007 on 6/12/2012 8:55:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The field of global warming research has suffered in recent years from...


Intentionally polarizing, non-peer reviewed, poorly written blog posts.




RE: you forgot...
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/13/2012 11:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
poorly written blog posts.
"Poorly written"... any specific complaints or are you just exercising your right to whine?
quote:
non-peer reviewed

The article WAS peer-reviewed by my editor. Your peer is whoever you work with in your occupation. In the research community one's peers are fellow researchers. For me its my coeditors and executive editor Brandon. So your comment is off base. Try again?
quote:
Intentionally polarizing,
My aim is not to polarize, my goal is to provide proper context of the state of the field and what we do and do not know.

Yes, there's a large body of evidence pointing that some warming has occurred post Industrial Revolution. And yes, most climatologists are in consensus that more warming will occur.

That said, there's some significant unknowns, namely:

1. Will mankind be able to adjust to or even benefit from a warmer climate?

2. Can mankind "stop" warming effectively if they wanted to (many climatologists have answered "no")?

3. How hot will the planet ultimately get in a "worse case" scenario?? (History suggests in the very long term 15-25 degrees Fahrenheit hotter, likely -- but this would likely eventually occur naturally, even without human influence)

As for the study itself, my critique/criticism is badly misunderstood by you. I am not calling into question the results, which look well documented and well-researched. My concern is more one of novelty.

Anyone peripherally involved with research knows that novelty as a criteria for publication can be highly political. In this case I would argue that the study is not novel enough to fit into such a prestigious journal, in that it's evaluating a scenario that is in the extreme end of the historical context, and far outside near-term current warming estimates.

I have a problem with the researchers characterizing this as relevant to current warming, because their study's results are focused on warming that is far beyond what anyone thinks we'll encounter in the next 100 years.

Thus I would argue this study fails the novelty criteria and should have been relegated to a lesser journal. Clearly the climatologist editors @ PNAS who reviewed it disagree, but again consider that publication is inherently a political process (not in a gov't but in a university politics sense).


By Captain Orgazmo on 6/12/2012 9:45:12 PM , Rating: 3
On the subject of pointless studies, I propose a new study:

"What would happen to their funding if climate scientists found that climate change was really not a concern, and totally out of humanity's control anyways?"




Here.
By JKflipflop98 on 6/13/2012 3:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
By PaFromFL on 6/14/2012 8:25:13 AM , Rating: 2
The real problem is a bias in government research funding. If you find that the sky is not falling, you lose funding. If the sky is falling in a manner that could increase government power and tax revenue, your funding increases by orders of magnitude. Imagine a reverse system where grant money is increased to those researchers that make a good scientific case that nothing needs to done, and Chicken Little's grant money is given to other researchers to verify his results. Would the global warming industry survive?




By overlandpark4me on 6/16/2012 8:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
because the earth is in a cooling trend again. It's been 40 years, maybe Time Magazine will talk about an impending ice age again. What a bunch of losers. Sheep are funny




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki