Proof of Global Warming?

[JonS]

This is really just more argument from the "ideal" climate is the climate today, not yesterday and not tomorrow position, which has no rationale basis.

That's true enough, except that for the first time in history we've created a situation in which people are no longer free to migrate as climate changes. We've also created a situation - for the first time - in which there are what are effectively vast ecological deserts that will prevent (or greatly hinder) the free migration of plants and animals. Finally, we - both as a global society and individually - have sunk vast quantities of resources on the basis that the climate will stay the same.

So, in those senses, yes. The "ideal" climate is today's climate.

Which is not to say that some people will be better off if/when the climate changes. They most assuredly will. Just as assuredly as some other folk will be substantially worse off, and looking for ways to alleviate their pain.

[dieseltaylor]

akd

and life on Earth has dealt with much more extreme changes over the last million odd years than even those forecast by the most simplistic and biased "climate models" coopted to serve the interests of the AGW political/social movement.

Could not agree more. However in previous changes when the ice sheet hath cometh the numbers of humans has dropped to very small figures. So if we were to concentrate on mankind rather than life in general it would sharpen up the debate somewhat.

Plants like warmth, CO2 and water. Warm means more food, cold less.

Thats a big jump - warm means more food. How about warm means bigger deserts and droughts. Australia's rice crop down 98% after 6 years of drought.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/17/business/17warm.php

Researchers are looking for solutions to global rice shortages — for example, rice that blooms earlier in the day, when it is cooler, to counter global warming. Rice plants that happen to bloom on hot days are less likely to produce grains of rice, a difficulty that is already starting to emerge in inland areas of China and other Asian countries as temperatures begin to climb.

"There will be problems very soon unless we have new varieties of rice in place," said Reiner Wassmann, climate change coordinator at the International Rice Research Institute near Manila, a leader in developing higher-yielding strains of rice for nearly half a century.

The recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change carried an important caveat that could make the news even worse: the panel said that existing models for the effects of climate change on agriculture did not yet include newer findings that global warming could reduce rainfall and make it more variable.

The whole article is worth a read. It does point out production could rise in certain countries whilst others get deeper into trouble. The question is then do the beneficiaries want to send food to those that cannot afford it ...

[JonS]

First the facts: Well, there aren't any. There are theories.

You say that like there are no other theories in the world of science, or as if to be 'merely' a theory was somehow a bad thing.

You also say it as if corralling enough facts somehow turns a theory into ... erm ... something else.

Heres a quickie lesson, by analogy, on the difference between 'facts' and 'theories'.

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed repeatedly in real time, over long times spans, and in the fossil record. There is no (rational) debate about the fact of evolution.

Evolution by natural selection (EbNS), on the other hand, is a theory. It is the theory seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ (NOT ‘if’) evolution occurs in the ways that have been observed. As it happens, it's a pretty good theory, and the observable facts 'fit' (“can be explained by”) the theory pretty well. But it's still just a theory. There is no doubt in my mind that it will continue to be refined and improved, as a theory, albeit in fairly small amounts, and mostly to deal with fringe cases. It is even possible that someone may come up with a whole different theory that explains the facts of evolution, and which completely discards the theory of evolution by natural selection. Very unlikely, I think, but possible.

Likewise, global warming / climate change is a fact. Actually, not just one fact, but loads of facts. So to say there are "no facts" is ... disingenuous. Global warming / climate change by human causes is the theory which seeks to explain that global warming, in whole - or more likely - in part. However, unlike EbNS, human driven climate change (HDCC) is not the only viable theory in the field. But then, EbNS is some 150 years old, while HDCC is, what, maybe 20 years old? I would expect HDCC to continue to change and evolve (heh), in occasionally significant ways, over the next decades. It may even be totally refuted. But that will not suddenly mean that the observed global warming / climate change has not happened.

[dieseltaylor]

And you can't equal historical facts and half a century of hindsight with acting upon guesswork.

Hindsight? Those in power in 1930's Britain could not know there would be a war, they however did feel it prudent to anticipate to a degree that investment in defence needed to be made. Inspired guesswork on their part?

Re: Russia. Attacking another country on the possibility they may be up to no good is a far more recent idea for democracies. : )

Anyway you say I cannot equate history and hindsight with guesswork. I thought those who failed to learn from history repeated the errors. The great potato famine in Ireland, the wiping out of the French vineyards and nowadays we have a virulent wheat rust, and bananas that require 40 sprays a crop and our still under threat. Monocultures are not a good thing. Particularly if you are a small poor country reliant on the crop as your main cash earner.

The fact that we are talking global crops in the 2000's rather than single countries in the 1800's does not diminsh the lessons that ought to have been learned.

I find it curious that whilst there is widespread acceptance that bad weather follows major eruptions:

It has been known for some time that explosive volcanic eruptions can have a major influence on global and regional climate. The most well known eruption of recent times was Tambora, Indonesia, which exploded in 1815. The following summer became known as the "the year without a summer" in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere. Only certain types of volcanic eruption will have an effect upon the climate. The eruption has to be of sufficient magnitude to emit very large quantities of material into the lower stratosphere (20-25km above the Earth's surface) and, for maximum impact, it should be in lower latitudes. With these conditions met, the particles in the lower stratosphere spread to form a "veil" over the whole planet. This veil then affects the amount of the sun's energy which reaches the Earth's surface.

People are happy to maintain that the activities of 6.75billion people have no effect at all on the planets weather. Seems a difficult act to reconcile.

[dieseltaylor]

JonS

It is even possible that someone may come up with a whole different theory that explains the facts of evolution, and which completely discards the theory of evolution by natural selection. Very unlikely, I think, but possible.

I am afraid its already done Jon. New Scientist last week detailed how the Tree of Life has fallen apart with much evidence of bits odd DNA etc passing between animals, and even plants. Arguably a form of selection if the new animal/plant prospers but not "natural" as we are inclined to think of a refinement process of the existing .

Hybridisation isn't the only force undermining the multicellular tree: it is becoming increasingly apparent that HGT plays an unexpectedly big role in animals too. As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 17023).

Other cases of HGT in multicellular organisms are coming in thick and fast. HGT has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows. The most likely agents of this genetic shuffling are viruses, which constantly cut and paste DNA from one genome into another, often across great taxonomic distances. In fact, by some reckonings, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions (New Scientist, 27 August 2008, p 38). The same is probably true of the genomes of other big animals. "The number of horizontal transfers in animals is not as high as in microbes, but it can be evolutionarily significant," says Bapteste.

Nobody is arguing - yet - that the tree concept has outlived its usefulness in animals and plants. While vertical descent is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another - a tree of 51 per cent, maybe. In that respect, Darwin's vision has triumphed: he knew nothing of micro-organisms and built his theory on the plants and animals he could see around him.

Even so, it is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works. "If you don't have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?" asks Bapteste. "At first it's very scary... but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds." Both he and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong - just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not. "We should relax a bit on this," says Doolittle. "We understand evolution pretty well - it's just that it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=4

[JonS]

EbNS has moved quite a way from strictly "Darwinian" EbNS anyway. This just moves it a bit further.

Also, note that even the article says "... Darwin's vision has triumphed ... [bapeste] and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong ..."

If the HGT is adventitious, then it will generally be selected for, and EbNS rolls on. If the HGT is not adventitious, then it will generally not be selected for, and again EbNS rolls on

[Kanonier Reichmann]

The quote from the article linked to by Silvio Manuel from the scientist who apparently inspired Al Gore should probably be expanded a tad to include a pretty important bit of additional information. The expanded quote reads thus:

In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways

Doing the maths I make it that "10 or 20 years" from 1988 is about, ummm....now! So one would assume that there is far more evidence either for or against the theory over the period this guy suggested we wait for.

Regards

Jim R.

[luderbamsen]

You say that like there are no other theories in the world of science, or as if to be 'merely' a theory was somehow a bad thing.

You also say it as if corralling enough facts somehow turns a theory into ... erm ... something else.

Heres a quickie lesson, by analogy, on the difference between 'facts' and 'theories'.

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed repeatedly in real time, over long times spans, and in the fossil record. There is no (rational) debate about the fact of evolution.

Evolution by natural selection (EbNS), on the other hand, is a theory. It is the theory seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ (NOT ‘if’) evolution occurs in the ways that have been observed. As it happens, it's a pretty good theory, and the observable facts 'fit' (“can be explained by”) the theory pretty well. But it's still just a theory. There is no doubt in my mind that it will continue to be refined and improved, as a theory, albeit in fairly small amounts, and mostly to deal with fringe cases. It is even possible that someone may come up with a whole different theory that explains the facts of evolution, and which completely discards the theory of evolution by natural selection. Very unlikely, I think, but possible.

Likewise, global warming / climate change is a fact. Actually, not just one fact, but loads of facts. So to say there are "no facts" is ... disingenuous. Global warming / climate change by human causes is the theory which seeks to explain that global warming, in whole - or more likely - in part. However, unlike EbNS, human driven climate change (HDCC) is not the only viable theory in the field. But then, EbNS is some 150 years old, while HDCC is, what, maybe 20 years old? I would expect HDCC to continue to change and evolve (heh), in occasionally significant ways, over the next decades. It may even be totally refuted. But that will not suddenly mean that the observed global warming / climate change has not happened.

Nobody is disputing the fact that climate changes happen (hello? ice age?). But this is about the Human influence on climate change. Based on what we know, it is probable that human activities influence the global climate to some extent. Could be a little, could be alot. But what's really disingenous is claiming that human activity is the cause of global warming as if that was a fact. We just don't know. It could be the global average temperature will continue to rise for decades, caused by CO2 emissions. It could be that this is just a short heat spell before a new ice age. Or something else. We just don't know. And it's not a case of "we don't know with 100% absolute certainty so we should do nothing". It's a case of "we don't have a friggin' clue".

Hindsight? Those in power in 1930's Britain could not know there would be a war, they however did feel it prudent to anticipate to a degree that investment in defence needed to be made. Inspired guesswork on their part?

Re: Russia. Attacking another country on the possibility they may be up to no good is a far more recent idea for democracies. : )

Anyway you say I cannot equate history and hindsight with guesswork. I thought those who failed to learn from history repeated the errors. The great potato famine in Ireland, the wiping out of the French vineyards and nowadays we have a virulent wheat rust, and bananas that require 40 sprays a crop and our still under threat. Monocultures are not a good thing. Particularly if you are a small poor country reliant on the crop as your main cash earner.

The fact that we are talking global crops in the 2000's rather than single countries in the 1800's does not diminsh the lessons that ought to have been learned.

I find it curious that whilst there is widespread acceptance that bad weather follows major eruptions:

People are happy to maintain that the activities of 6.75billion people have no effect at all on the planets weather. Seems a difficult act to reconcile.

Fair enough. I misread your WW2 analogy, apologies. It's still silly though. "Something might happen, we think, maybe, so we should totally do something about it" is a lousy way to run a planet. In fact, your Iraq hint is a better analogy: Drastic action based on dodgy information can have very unfortunate consequences.

And, again, there are plenty of perfectly good reasons why we should reduce fossil fuel consumption and invest more in alternative, renewable energy sources. For one thing, people first began to look into solar and wind power in earnest back in the 70's when OPEC got bitchy with oil production and pricing (pardon my gross distortion of history to make a point). Reducing oil dependency made sense then. It still makes sense today. If there is a beneficiary side effect to the global climate, so much the better.

[akd]

That's true enough, except that for the first time in history we've created a situation in which people are no longer free to migrate as climate changes.

Not conceding to your point, as it seems a vast oversimplification, I'd also point out that we have created a situation where people do not need to migrate due to climate changes. You are not suggesting that even the most extreme climate models actually predict that areas of the earth will cease to support life, that humans will actually die if they do not move, to say, Antarctica. I hope you are aware of the enormous climate variation that humans currently live and thrive in? It far exceeds even the most dire predictions of catastrophe from the Goracle.

We've also created a situation - for the first time - in which there are what are effectively vast ecological deserts that will prevent (or greatly hinder) the free migration of plants and animals.

Where are these vast ecological deserts we've created by changing the global climate? The truest ecological deserts are the frozen wastes at the poles. Did we create these? And these vast ecological deserts once extended over much vaster areas of the Earth.

Anyways, I'm not sure what part of AGW theory or modelling predicts vast ecological deserts (i.e. the destruction of all life). What would be the mechanism? The oceans will dry up and everything will become a vast, parched desert? Wall-E was not real, you know. Or that we'll end up like Venus, which was once shining oasis of tranquility and life in the solar system? Oh wait, Venus is not Earth and was never like Earth and cannot serve as a proxy for Earth under any scenario.

Finally, we - both as a global society and individually - have sunk vast quantities of resources on the basis that the climate will stay the same.

So, in those senses, yes. The "ideal" climate is today's climate.

I would say we have sunk far vaster resources into adapting to life in places that shouldn't sustain us and surviving natural occurences that would have killed us in the past. However, we could probably still benefit from more arable land and longer growing seasons (if all the land isn't converted to biofuel production instead of food, that is).

Which is not to say that some people will be better off if/when the climate changes. They most assuredly will. Just as assuredly as some other folk will be substantially worse off, and looking for ways to alleviate their pain.

As will be the way of the world regardless if CAGW is real or not. It will go on changing and we will either adapt or die. How we expend our resources to best adapt will not be accomplished through precautionary principle action based on deeply-flawed computer models, but rationale cost-benefit analysis of realworld data. Precautions can cost lives, millions of lives (see DDT).

[Stalins Organ]

Anyways, I'm not sure what part of AGW theory or modelling predicts vast ecological deserts (i.e. the destruction of all life). What would be the mechanism? The oceans will dry up and everything will become a vast, parched desert?

The oceans may not dry up - but big parts of them are becoming lifeless

[akd]

The oceans may not dry up - but big parts of them are becoming lifeless

Luckily coastal dead zones are a result of actual pollution, which of course can and should be controlled.

Low oxygen, known as hypoxia, is in significant measure a downstream effect of chemical fertilizers used in agriculture. Air pollution, including smog from automobiles, is another factor. The nitrogen from the fertilizer and the pollution feeds the growth of algae in coastal waters, particularly during summer.

Unfortunately, we can't worry about that right now. We have to concentrate on that much more dangerous pollutant, CO2.

"The next big challenge, after global warming, is going to be addressing the massive upset of the world's nitrogen cycle," Rader said.

[Other Means]

If it gets that bad we'd just re-start nuclear testing and get a load of dust in the atmosphere.

Nukes. Is there anything they can't do?

[Tero]

By JonS

That's true enough, except that for the first time in history we've created a situation in which people are no longer free to migrate as climate changes

Man still has feet, doesn't he ? If/when the excrement hits the ventilation in, say, India or China what force will stop the migation from those areas to areas not affected by said excrement shower ?

I'm not saying the migration would be a overnight affair. It would rather be a decade(s) or century(ies) long affair.

I think the advances in media and communication technology has clouded our perspective from centuries and decades to days and indeed minutes.

We've also created a situation - for the first time - in which there are what are effectively vast ecological deserts that will prevent (or greatly hinder) the free migration of plants and animals.

I doubt that. If we can wreck havoc in places like Australia by introducing flora and founa not indiginous to the area there is no reason to think nature can not take care of its own in that respect when the climate change goes over the threshold for the prevailing flora and fauna. After all, the nature works in cycles which span centuries and eons, not weeks and months.

Finally, we - both as a global society and individually - have sunk vast quantities of resources on the basis that the climate will stay the same.

IMO it is not a mere coincidence the already barren areas with oil reserves have affected (by proxy of the oil industry) the development of effective and cost efficient energy sources which would in turn help arid areas for example in their strugle to ward off the deserts.

Which is not to say that some people will be better off if/when the climate changes. They most assuredly will. Just as assuredly as some other folk will be substantially worse off, and looking for ways to alleviate their pain.

I think this whole scare is all about the haves fearing they will lose what they have because all their posessions will become worthless as it all is meaningless and superficial to the existence of the humans as a spieces.

[JonS]

Man still has feet, doesn't he ? If/when the excrement hits the ventilation in, say, India or China what force will stop the migation from those areas to areas not affected by said excrement shower ?

Borders. And the people on the happy side of the border wanting to stay happy, and not share with the folk eating a **** sandwich.

[JonS]

Not conceding to your point, as it seems a vast oversimplification, I'd also point out that we have created a situation where people do not need to migrate due to climate changes. You are not suggesting that even the most extreme climate models actually predict that areas of the earth will cease to support life, that humans will actually die if they do not move, to say, Antarctica. I hope you are aware of the enormous climate variation that humans currently live and thrive in? It far exceeds even the most dire predictions of catastrophe from the Goracle.

Living underwater will be a neat trick.

Where are these vast ecological deserts we've created by changing the global climate?

Western Europe? Heck, Europe as a whole? Bears, for example, are gonna have a deal of trouble migrating from Spain to anywhere else if it gets too hot/cold/wet/dry for them.

[Tero]

Borders. And the people on the happy side of the border wanting to stay happy, and not share with the folk eating a **** sandwich.

How well will these lines in the paper maps stop billions of Chinese from crossing the Siberian expanses ?

Then again I wonder how a post nuclear war nuclear winter would affect the global warming....

[Tero]

By JonS

Western Europe? Heck, Europe as a whole? Bears, for example, are gonna have a deal of trouble migrating from Spain to anywhere else if it gets too hot/cold/wet/dry for them.

Apart from the human population there is no real reason for the bears not to be able to migrate towards North.

[JonS]

sexah double.

[JonS]

Apart from the human population there is no real reason for the bears not to be able to migrate towards North.

I don't really agree the people are the only barrier (lack of more-or-less contiguous habitat being right up there, for instance) but, even assuming I do, isn't that a fairly substantial "apart from"?

[Tero]

By JonS

I don't really agree the people are the only barrier (lack of more-or-less contiguous habitat being right up there, for instance) but, even assuming I do, isn't that a fairly substantial "apart from"?

That depends what kind of habitat they require. The rural areas are, apart from human habitation, able to sustain bears if they were to treck North.

The bears of Iberia are a bit superfluous anyway since their total number does not exceed 300 specimens.

http://www.iberianature.com/material/spain_wildlife/bear_extinction_spain.htm

[costard]

The human inhabitants provide sustenance for hungry bears.