Climate crisis or not?

[boks]

Has anybody here seen Lord Christopher Monckton's debunking of IPCC's science on climate change? I found it very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

[studiot]

Thank you for publicising this.

[wr8y]

An hour and a half! Boy, I guess he REALLY gets into it!

I'll listen to it at home tonight. THanks for posting it - hope it's good.

(My dad laughed at me in 1974 when I came home from 6th grade and told him that we were entering an ice age due to how pollution was "shading" us from the sun. Within 15 years, they were telling us that we were actually not cooling, but warming...:rolleyes:)

[jpanhalt]

Go to the PowerPoint presentation. You can get most of it, I think, from the slides. Slide #52 caught my eye. I also didn't have 90 minutes to watch my monitor.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf

John

[ELECTRONERD]

Climate change is one thing, but global warming is another. In fact, I am dubious when it comes to global warming, I believe that the Earth goes through a series of climate changes. Originally it was the Ice Age, then it thawed off and got warmer. Also, the Anasazi Indians who lived in the Cliff Dwellings went through a series of droughts and abundant rainfall. I think it was suspected that a 50 year drought ocurred and then they had rain. Global warming has gotten too political.

Austin

[steveb]

I also didn't have 90 minutes to watch my monitor.




-Exactly my issue. I'm not too worried that I miss it. I didn't waste 90 minutes watching Gore's movie, so now I don't need to waste 90 minutes on a video that tries to debunk it. If I'm going to devote 90 minutes to this subject, I'd rather go directly to the published scientific literature and make my own conclusions.

Anyway, it seems that the gist of it is that some politicians and administrators have lied/exaggerated. Do we really need 90 minutes to convince us of that? Just tell us their profession is "Politician" and we're done.

Anyway, politicians, the media and the masses have never understood science. Just read through some of the comments that are posted after that video. It's 99% nonsense. The collective ignorance and shortsightedness of humans is not likely to change for a long long time. Indeed, before that happens, we will directly see the effects of CO2 buildup, whether they turn out to be benign, or catastrophic for human interests.

[jpanhalt]

I agree, and maybe you have time for a parochial story. There was a joint session of the American Congress recently, and one of the Representatives shouted "liar" as the President was speaking. He was accused of insulting the President. Maybe so, but others pointed out that with over 600 politicians in the room, how could anyone know for sure to whom he was referring.

Science and politics really don't mix well, particularly when there is so much money at stake. BTW, I am not willing to consider CO2 (and water vapor) build-up in a one-tailed manner. It maybe helpful too.

John

[beenthere]

Taking a longer view, the last set of ice ages and the subsequent thaws did not happen because of human activity. We might not have a firm handle on climatic change as yet.

[studiot]

Indeed, before that happens, we will directly see the effects of CO2 buildup

If you bothered to watch all the way through, (worth it for the wizecracks alone), you would find out that he was presenting actual measurements on the planet to test this. These were recently released by your own government agencies.

[steveb]

If you bothered to watch all the way through, (worth it for the wizecracks alone), you would find out that he was presenting actual measurements on the planet to test this. These were recently released by your own government agencies.

I have to say that I was really turned off by the wisecracks. I listened to the first 15 minutes and scanned the entire presentation. The ridicule should be unnecessary if the facts speak for themselves. It made me question the motivations of the speaker. It strikes me as a political counterattack disguised as an effort to present factual data. It makes no difference whether this is true or not. Once I don't trust the speaker's motivations, I see no reason to hear more. A skillful liar will use 99 % of the truth, and decieve you with the hidden 1 %. For this reason, in complicated situations, I usually go to the scientific literature directly and rely on my own reasoning to get an answer I can trust.

Speaking of trust, do you really think I trust the data released by my government agencies? No way! I ignore it completely.

[studiot]

do you really think I trust the data released by my government agencies? No way! I ignore it completely.

Do you not generally work to ANSI standards and is that organisation respected worldwide as is NOAA, Scrips Hole Institute, John Hopkins Medical Centre etc etc?

I think your statement rather sweeping Sir.

But yes you have a famous phrase

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

Whilst there is much to condemn in the American way there is also much to admire.

[steveb]

Do you not generally work to ANSI standards and is that organisation respected worldwide as is NOAA, Scrips Hole Institute, John Hopkins Medical Centre etc etc?

I think your statement rather sweeping Sir.

Of course, any statement like that is overly sweeping, but it's not too far from the truth for me in general. I don't have many issues with standards, because, whether or not I agree with them, there are times when they must be followed. It's the same thing with laws. I follow them even when they bother me in principle. But these don't relate to questions of truth. - They are just rules. Still, it's known that laws and standards are often enacted for political or financial gains, and any scientific data that is used to justify rules, should be questioned and verified.

However, my statement was really about realeased data relating to issues that have poltical consequences. Or, more accurately, lies and propaganda released to achieve a goal. I needn't mention "weapons of mass-destruction", but it's a good example of how serious I am in my doubts. Perhaps you won't believe me, but when I heard that statement years ago, I identified it as what it was, and told my friends not to believe it. Not one person I know saw through the deception. The spin we hear now is that it was just an honest mistake. "Everyone was fooled." Well, I wasn't fooled then, and I'm not fooled now.


Whilst there is much to condemn in the American way there is also much to admire.

I agree with that completely. Most things are so good here, but ignorance, stupidity and corruption exist everywhere. My statement is not an attack on my country, but on my species.

[ELECTRONERD]

Taking a longer view, the last set of ice ages and the subsequent thaws did not happen because of human activity. We might not have a firm handle on climatic change as yet.

That's my point, that humans couldn't have possibly affected climate change; and I don't think that CO2 build-up is contributing to the climate change. Besides, humans couldn't really prevent a climate change at the moment.

Austin

[boks]

From a problem in my book:

CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping, and is responsible for roughly half of the greenhouse effect, the putative origin of global warming.

Is this wrong?

[steveb]

From a problem in my book:

CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping, and is responsible for roughly half of the greenhouse effect, the putative origin of global warming.

Is this wrong?

That number sounds a little too high. Does the problem include water vapor as a greenhouse gas? Based on your wording, it should. Basic physics considering absorption spectra and gas concentrations put the effect of CO2 well below that of water vapor, and CO2 is ranked second and estimated to contribute between 10% and 30 % of the greenhouse effect.

[jpanhalt]

Wikipedia gives the percentage contributions as:

water vapor = 36-72%
CO2 = 9-26%
methane = 4-9%

US governmental sources that I saw don't give a % contribution (how ever that is defined and calculated), but by simple relative proportion water far exceeds CO2.

See:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg

The latter link has this interesting quote:
Did You Know?

If it were not for naturally occurring greenhouse gases, the Earth would be too cold to support life as we know it. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be about -2°F rather than the 57°F we currently experience.

Without greenhouse gases, it would be snowball Earth. We are just outside the so-called habitable zone for the solar system.

Natural processes tend to sequester CO2 as carbonates and other solids. Some have argued, perhaps tongue in cheek, that it is mankind's responsibility as caretakers of our planet to replenish that CO2 . Just look what happened to Mars which lacked such efforts by intelligent life.

John

[loosewire]

How can photo's of snow covered peaks going back decades
that has been documented very well. These mountains peak are melting
at a alarming rate. We have to relie on real information,if the
mountains were stable for a 100 years that has to be considered in
opinions today. These beautiful peaks were photoed a lot from
all angles so there is much history to look at and evaluate.

[wr8y]

From a problem in my book:

CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping, and is responsible for roughly half of the greenhouse effect, the putative origin of global warming.

Is this wrong?
Sounds wrong to me. See if, thru your reading, you can understand how they arrived at that.

Now, if they are REALLY saying that "half of all INCREASE that we have seen is due to more CO2" then that is one thing.

But if they are saying that 1/2 of all of the total greenhouse effect as described in jpanhalt's post, then I dont' see how that could be.

[GetDeviceInfo]

I find discussion, pro or con, dedunant, and much along the lines of, what would you do if you won the lottery.

data shows some repeatability in that there is a period of prolonged change, followed by a period of rapid change. There is much arrgument to maintian our environment in perpetual stagnation, but we also know that such an environment will eventually become exhausted.

As we perform our primary task, that of being agents of entropy, we are powerless in dictating the rate at which change takes place.

[Bill_Marsden]

As a species we can control some things, though not as much as the green movement thinks. Where we can reasonably change we need to. It is stupid to do things the way they were done yesterday because that is how it has always been done. We don't dump our sewage in the streets anymore because we discovered it was bad for us, we need to take the same approach with CO2. To those who don't think humans make that much difference, the 50% or so of the species we've rendered extinct already might disagree.

By being we will change things, but we need to choose what we change where we can.

[GetDeviceInfo]

Our environment has a certain capacity for life. Are we reducing it by exterminating certain species?, I personally don't think so. Will virulant organisms bloom?, likely. We've gone through the industrial age with disregard to the environment, now we look down on third world countries that want what we have, and yes, gargabe line thier streets.

Here in Alberta, not unlike many other locations, our electricity is largely generated via coal burning. Our emissions level is not impressive. Yet it is the tar sands that recieve most attention. However it is the tarsands that are the leading edge of technology in researching advanced emissions techniques. Two emerging technologies include capture/compression/injection, the second being coalbed gasification. The latter is of special interest in that hydrogen rich/pure gases can be produced. There has been much discussion in regards to fuel cells and the need for a hydrogen source. That source will possibly be had as a secondary product of gasificaton. The beauty of this technique is that the carbon emissions never leave the ground.

[jpanhalt]

I just don't buy that humans are(edit) responsible for anywhere near the number of extinctions that nature, including other animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and prions, has caused.

John

[steveb]

I just don't buy that humans are responsible for anywhere near the number of extinctions that nature, including other animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and prions, has caused.

John

One thing is for sure. Extinction is a normal part of the history of life on earth. Many many more species have gone extinct in history, compared to those species living now. And, more than 99.9 % of those extinctions occurred long before humans existed. We shouldn't use this as an excuse to be reckless (and there are plenty of cases when we have been), but we also shouldn't feel that inadvertently driving a species extinct is an unforgivable crime (we aren't omnipotent beings with perfect foresight).

To live, is to evoke change. That is inevitable.

The bottom line is that we are an integral part of nature, no matter how much some people like to think we are separate from it. There are strong interactions between all life forms. Also, getting back to the original topic, there are strong interactions of all life with the Earth's atmospheric composition too. Soon, human's will be responsible for doubling the CO2 concentration in an unprecedented (or at least rare) 200-300 years. However, look at the 21% oxygen content of our atmosphere. It is there because plants evolved, and we would not be here without this awesome change. If the Earth's life survived a 21% increase in poisonous oxygen, it will no doubt survive anything we will do to it.

The question of whether we will avoid becoming extinct is a separate discussion entirely. We may do something that does us harm, but which future life will benefit from. Time will tell if our unique intelligence and adaptability is more powerful than the ominous survival statistics, and the overwhelming and unpredictable forces of nature.

[jpanhalt]

OOPS, I left out a key word, my statement should read "not responsible."

It has been edited.

John

[steveb]

OOPS, I left out a key word, my statement should read "not responsible."

It has been edited.

John

Are you sure about that edit? With this change you are saying that you think humans have caused more extinctions than nature. I think you meant it the original way.

[loosewire]

How often does some one quotes The New York Times as a
source,congress makes there stories part the record. More often
than science Information,Nature magazine was duped by some story
about growing cells to replace silicon in transistors.From 1-10 how
do you rate the times and Nature mag. What is most believable
source you depend on for correct Info.

[jpanhalt]

@steveb

Double OOPS. You are so right. It was correct as originally written. My mind is just not with it this evening.

To add a little, I am not too concerned about saving a life form that can't compete. True, it might be good to have some of the recently extinct species around as curiosities, but humans by ourselves are not very good at making anything extinct. Maybe, we just gave a nudge.

One concern is that our actions may help those species that are pretty good competitors become even better competitors. Consider the past 60 years of infectious diseases. Staphylococcus aureus and tuberculosis were big problems before 1950, then became little problems with antibiotics, and are now re-emerging as potentially even greater problems.

John

[GetDeviceInfo]

In regards to the op, I listened for about 15 minutes. I'm immediately sceptic about one who claims to hold all truths.

I also can't agree that population will be controlled by raising the standard of living for the poor. If you give a home to the people of India's dumps, how long will it take before a new generation of dump people fill the void.

[studiot]

This is an interesting history of the question as posed in the thread title.

http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1086

[loosewire]

Seems like a hundred years ago that we gave up r-12 to close the
hole in the ozone. We made a difference,20 years from now we will
think nothing about being green. Time cures all.

[wr8y]

This is an interesting history of the question as posed in the thread title.

http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1086
Those of us who have lived long enough (I was born in 1960) know that we have gone from "the coming ice age" to "global warming" to "climate change" since 1970. And now matter WHO was saying WHAT, we were always assured that this (whatever was being said at the time) spelled the end of humanity. :rolleyes:

First, in the 70's, I was taught in school that pollution was "shading" us from the sun, contributing to the natural, cyclical, cooling that was coming anyway.

Then, by the 90's, my kids were being taught that we were actually trapping more heat with the afore-mentioned pollution.

But, alas, the evidence is so weak, and now there are actual signs of cooling (or at least stabilization over the previous indicated warming) that the word is "Climate Change".

This reminds me of my dad in 1972. When I came home and told him of the 'coming ice age' due to us driving our cars, he laughed and told me to "take what they tell you with a grain of salt". When I questioned why school was so important if I could not trust what I was being taught - he simply said that "grades will follow you your whole life".

But he was right - there is, always has been, and always will be, a 'crisis' that someone wants to shove down our throats. And while they preach that they are trying to save us from ourselves, one often gets the idea that what they are really doing is trying very hard to control us. OR, maybe, tax us in a way - or for a 'reason', that we won't complain about.

(Gotta save the planet - no price is too great for a job that big and important, right?)

[HarveyH42]

Usually the people that are in the media, making the huge uproar (Al Gore), have a financial interest in gathering a crowd of followers. The glaciers are melting, global warming, we are going to burn up or drown. Some people will burn for all eternity! The glaciers were a product of an Ice Age, thousands of years ago, and have been melting ever since. Eventually, the planet will return to a warmer temperature we apparently had before the Ice Age. We can't stop flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes or volcanoes, so who in their right mind would believe we can control global temperature? Why would we want to? Might go from a few degrees increase, to colder temperatures.

[ELECTRONERD]

Usually the people that are in the media, making the huge uproar (Al Gore), have a financial interest in gathering a crowd of followers. The glaciers are melting, global warming, we are going to burn up or drown. Some people will burn for all eternity! The glaciers were a product of an Ice Age, thousands of years ago, and have been melting ever since. Eventually, the planet will return to a warmer temperature we apparently had before the Ice Age. We can't stop flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes or volcanoes, so who in their right mind would believe we can control global temperature? Why would we want to? Might go from a few degrees increase, to colder temperatures.

I agree, humans can't possibly make any significant impact towards "global warming" and we don't have the money if we could. Global warming has gotten far too political.

Austin

[beenthere]

Hot off the press - http://www.ecnmag.com/article-co2-levels-remained-constant-111109.aspx?menuid=0

Don't know the methodology, but it might call the current assumptions into serious question.

[boks]

Climategate.

[loosewire]

The free press won't dig the truth on a lot of subjects that
has to do with things and numbers we really need. We are
being overloaded on this subject and we are posting about it.
I just mentioned Dubai in post a few days ago. Look at it now,
you better take some interest in tarp and stuff. America,U.K.
now Denmark will be next. We have a real voice among ourselfies
that we can use our opinions without loudness,keep it calm
so it don't get locked. Think about small populations that are contained
within there borders with wealth with no outsiders. The U.S. has
mini countries within each county claiming there stake in U.S.
thus misleading goals our fore fathers. Two days and you are a pilgrim
with all the voting rights no concerns about global warming,just cash.

[HarveyH42]

To a point, I agree with the environmentalist, in that we could and need to clean up our planet, and quite being so wasteful with our resources. I don't believe the hype or eminent doom and disaster they keep trying to use to force people into action. We have been making a mess of our home for a thousand years, and it will likely take as long to clean it up, and change the way people behave. We are no different from any other animal, just more destructive and less efficient. Human beings still have a lot of growing up to do, before we can begin repairing our home. Personally, I think making any sort of radical changes in CO2, or the environment in general, will cause more harm, than good. We live on a delicate balance, tip the scale too much one way, you force everything else to go another, which will cause other critical problems.

[GetDeviceInfo]

In my view, nature has a wonderful way of rolling merrily along. With the sky and oceans being such effective buffers, organisms that live within natural selection, although not secure as a species, are accepting of thier surroundings.

We as a species, have deviated from the process. We think that we are developing security, yet with the complexity of our artifical exsistance, calamity becomes a resonant, waiting for the critical value to be reached.

[BillO]

We all know that the world climate has changed and will continue to do so. The thing I'm not convinced about is all the fervour concerning the agent. Does it really matter?

[ELECTRONERD]

I've heard that scientists are recently trying to hide the fact that the earth is actually cooling down; over the course of the last two years. Now people are skeptical that we are causing a climate change, and more scientists are gradually opposing the global warming myth.

Austin

[steveb]

I've heard that scientists are recently trying to hide the fact that the earth is actually cooling down;

I hope this is not the case.That would indeed be very disappointing, but not the first time it happened. Scientists are human too, but they need to hold themselves to a higher standard.

I think many scientists are looking at the situation from a cautious point of view. The question of whether the build up of CO2 can trigger a positive feedback effect is a critical one, and one that has not been proven true, nor false. How much CO2 can be added without consequences? Double? Triple? ... There must be a limit. If we don't know where it is, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

The bottom line is that we don't know the answer, and the only way to find out the answer for sure is to cross the line. Do we really want to do that? It's not like we can fix it, like replacing blown speakers. Should we stick the microphone in front of the speaker and just keep turning that CO2 knob without forethought? Once the speakers blow, it's too late. If there is any group that can understand the ideas of positive and negative feedback, and the damaging consequences of runaway effects with positive feedback, it should be those of us here.

[jpanhalt]

I think many scientists are looking at the situation from a cautious point of view. The question of whether the build up of CO2 can trigger a positive feedback effect is a critical one, and one that has not been proven true, nor false. How much CO2 can be added without consequences? Double? Triple? ... There must be a limit. If we don't know where it is, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.



How can you be sure the atmosphere was not actually depleted in CO2 relative to its "best" (or other relative term) state. How do you define normal, best, target or any other relative word for atmospheric CO2? Maybe we should add CO2 to avoid consequences of continued depletion?

The point is, there was a strong suspicion of intentional publication bias and throttling of any dissent that didn't agree with the political dogma championed by Al Gore. Now, with discovery of the hidden e-mails, it is no longer just a suspicion but clear evidence of a conspiracy that needs to be thoroughly and openly investigated.

John

[studiot]

Now, with discovery of the hidden e-mails

The world has come to a pretty pass when someone as level headed and unexcitable as JohnP talks about conspiracy.

I haven't heard about the Emails have you a link please?

[jpanhalt]

I wish I had a link to the e-mails per se, but I don't. Here is a link to a current news item about them, though.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html

John

[steveb]

How can you be sure the atmosphere was not actually depleted in CO2 relative to its "best" (or other relative term) state.

I guess we can't be sure of that. However, we can be sure that we are not currently in a runaway greenhouse effect.


How do you define normal, best, target or any other relative word for atmospheric CO2?

The issue isn't whether it is normal, but whether the concentration is high enough to trigger positive feedback by some mechanism.


Maybe we should add CO2 to avoid consequences of continued depletion?


Is there evidence of continued depletion? My understanding is it is on a steady rise since it is now 30-40 % higher than at the start of the industrial revolution. Anyway, even if you think adding CO2 has benefits, how do you know when to stop?


The point is, there was a strong suspicion of intentional publication bias and throttling of any dissent that didn't agree with the political dogma championed by Al Gore. Now, with discovery of the hidden e-mails, it is no longer just a suspicion but clear evidence of a conspiracy that needs to be thoroughly and openly investigated.

That could be true. I'm against McCarthyism in any form. I'm not surprised when politicians do such things, but as I said, I hope scientists rise to a higher level. We should be clear and truthful about what is known and unknown. Unfortunately, the problem is that the most critical issue is unknown. That is, we don't know if a positive feedback is possible, and if it is, we don't know what the limit is.

[jpanhalt]

Is there evidence of continued depletion? My understanding is it is on a steady rise since it is now 30-40 % higher than at the start of the industrial revolution. Anyway, even if you think adding CO2 has benefits, how do you know when to stop?


One has to plot CO2 levels over a greater period that 200 years plus or minus. I have read that the past 7 to 10 years have shown no increase in temps or at least nowhere near the expected increase from CO2. How is that explained?

For me, any statistical analysis of correlation must consider both potential benefits and risks (i.e., be two-tailed), unless one can make an awfully strong argument that it should be one-tailed. If there is a correlation, then one must also prove cause and effect. Neither seems to have been done in the political frenzy over CO2.

John

[steveb]

One has to plot CO2 levels over a greater period that 200 years plus or minus. I have read that the past 7 to 10 years have shown no increase in temps or at least nowhere near the expected increase from CO2. How is that explained?

It's hard to explain it, but there are many possibilities. Two are the following.

1. CO2 levels currently have very minor effect on the temperature due to controlling negative feedback effects.
2. CO2 levels have strong effects, but they are presently being masked by other strong counteracting natural or man-made effects.

In either of these cases, there can still loom a disaster if a threshold is crossed into a positive feedback regime. Temperature data are unclear, but it is clear that CO2 levels are rising (quickly by earth standards) and will continue to rise for hundreds of years based on current expectations. The bottom line is that the situation is completely uncertain and we don't understand it, yet we are turning the crank strongly in one direction. So, effort to curb CO2 buildup is a cautious move. To me, it just seems prudent to keep things in check as much as possible. There is no way we can stop the increase, but we can slow it down while we try to understand the real science.



For me, any statistical analysis of correlation must consider both potential benefits and risks (i.e., be two-tailed), unless one can make an awfully strong argument that it should be one-tailed. If there is a correlation, then one must also prove cause and effect. Neither seems to have been done in the political frenzy over CO2.


Well, there is a strong argument that maybe it should be biased in favor of risks. In nature, change rarely brings benefits, and more often brings disaster, to species well adapted to their environment. Most benefits of change comes to species not firmly rooted in a good niche. I'll make the point I've made before. The earth, and life on earth will be just fine no matter what we do. The only risk is to ourselves. Of course, humans are very adaptable and even the worst case is not likely to spell our ultimate doom, but survival and comfort are very different things.

However, I agree that taking action should not include lying, faking data, playing political games etc. We should also consider any harmful human costs to being overly aggressive in trying to slow the CO2 buildup. There is some evidence that shows we are not presently on the brink of disaster; so, our actions should not be panic-stricken over-compensations. A little common sense goes a long way here.

As a technologist, I'm really excited that we are now finally seriously looking at other energy production methods. I also like to see that people are capable of making changes if needed. If there are people being deliberately deceptive, I'm disappointed by that. Hopefully those people are dealt with so the bull-crap can be swept out and the real science can take the stage.

[Bill_Marsden]

Try googling global dimming. The particulates we send up also have an effect.

[GetDeviceInfo]

I had listened to an interesting report on the relationships between large scale carbonizing of vegetation (forest fires) to that of extint dinosaurs. The jest of the report was that evidence of larger scale forest fires weren't detected in the prehistoric record until after the dissappearance of the dinasaurs, predominately herbivoires. This then lead to adaptaion of vegetation to take advantage of the evolving climate.

As I indicated previously, stagnation of climate is not good, and our ability to exsist is dependant on the rate of change. Global warming/ cooling at any rate within anyone's current models, is a non issue. It's when the earth awakes, that we'll be vulnerable, and will reduce our current concerns irrellavent.

[Bill_Marsden]

There are a lot of bad things that can happen on earth, some we can do something about, some not. The Yellowstone caldera volcano is overdue, though on the time scales it operates on a thousand years isn't much. When it goes so does the USA, and the rest of the world will loose a significant chunk of population. Not too much we can do about that. An asteroid we might have a chance at though.

[steveb]

An asteroid we might have a chance at though.

A big enough asteroid could nearly sterilize the earth of life. Microbes and deep water ocean life would probably survive, and evolution would go through the greatest "reboot" in history. This has happened already a couple of times in earth's history, but never with the complexity of life we have now.

Even the caldera scenario could wipe out human life. We are not as powerful as we sometimes like to think. An event like that would wipe out the world's food chain and colapse the entire ecosystem. Again, life would survive and adapt, but I wouldn't bet on the humans being part of the new-world order.

If humans are to be sure of surviving for millions of years beyond the present time, we should migrate into space at some point. Mars will likely be tera-formed thousands of years in the future, and a colony there will be a good way to protect our species from extinction. Even better will be finding earth-like planets in other solar systems. Our technology can only protect us so much. There are forces in nature that can not be combated directly. At some point running is the only option. Moving some of us off-planet will not be an easy thing to do, but it is within the capability of human beings for sure, if we are given enough time.

[studiot]

A big enough asteroid could nearly sterilize the earth of life. Microbes and deep water ocean life would probably survive, and evolution would go through the greatest "reboot" in history. This has happened already a couple of times in earth's history, but never with the complexity of life we have now.


Whilst is is now fairly well established that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the Mexican asteroid, the end Permian mass extinction was by far the greatest and has yet to be satisfactorily explained. At this time an ecosystem of complexity rivalling our own was anihilated.

[steveb]

Whilst is is now fairly well established that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the Mexican asteroid, the end Permian mass extinction was by far the greatest and has yet to be satisfactorily explained. At this time an ecosystem of complexity rivalling our own was anihilated.

Yes, true. It certainly rivaled our own. It really comes down to how complexity is defined.

My own personal view is that we now have greater complexity with the establishment of mammal life. Mammals are the most developed energy utilizing forms of life that have evolved, as far as we know. And, hand in hand with that is the development of the human brain, which in my view, is the most complex and amazing thing that has ever evolved on our planet.,

[Bill_Marsden]

And, hand in hand with that is the development of the human brain, which in my view, is the most complex and amazing thing that has ever evolved on our planet.,

Playing devil's advocate, this from one of the said mammals with the amazing brain. :p A squid might want to argue this point, or perhaps an ET with a bigger database of what's out there. We could be as common as life.

The numbers I was hearing from the global dimming were pretty amazing, I don't know if they can be taken seriously or not. In some parts of the world 10% decrease in solar energy hitting the surface of the earth. The amount of light is large enough this is not life threatening, but the argument I was hearing on the PBS show is it may have been offsetting the greenhouse gas effects somewhat. Just another variable in a very large system.

[jpanhalt]

Yes, true. It certainly rivaled our own. It really comes down to how complexity is defined.

My own personal view is that we now have greater complexity with the establishment of mammal life. Mammals are the most developed energy utilizing forms of life that have evolved, as far as we know.

I get uncomfortable with such statements, because it is tempting to equate "complexity" with our place in evolution. As we know, bacteria do more with less than we mammals do. Perhaps, they are the more highly evolved life form?

I also question whether mammals are the most efficient energy utilizers. I think it is easier to defend the concept that most current species are equally highly evolved.

In reality, I am willing to give an edge to humans for smarts, but I am much less certain we have an edge in terms of survival. Numerous other vertebrates and insects have survived and adapted over the eons relatively unchanged.

John

[steveb]

I also question whether mammals are the most efficient energy utilizers.


You should question that, but I never said they are the most efficient. It's not a question of efficiency that I was raising. I don't actually know how to define efficiency in this context. And, once it is defined, I'm sure that mammals are NOT the most efficient because we waste a tremendous amount of heat energy as warm blooded creatures.

Rather, my point is about the complex systems that need to be in place for warm-blooded energy production systems to function properly. Mammals have the greatest capacity for power output for use in muscle action or brain power. The speed of the cheetah and the intellectual creations of man are good examples of what the energy production system of a mammal are capable of allowing.

I'm no expert in this field, but it is known that evolution has produced several abrupt, large and discrete leaps in energy utilization. The first simple creature used ambient thermal energy, then plants developed a huge advantage with the use of solar power, simple animals then adapted to steal the chemically stored energy from plants. Reptiles are very limited because they can not fully control their metabolism and depend on external heat sources. Dinosaurs and birds do (or did :eek:) better and attained a higher metabolic output. But, warm blooded mammals can utilize energy by regulating body temperature at a optimized point. There is a definable measure of complexity here in terms of the feedback systems and other mechanisms that need to be in place to generate greater and greater power. There is a cost, but also major benefits that come with warm-blooded metabolism.

I think it is easier to defend the concept that most current species are equally highly evolved.

That strikes me as a very difficult concept to defend. First you have to define what it means to be "highly evolved". Then, you have to convince us that the millions of species on earth are all equal. Then you have to explain that, even though we only have identified about 2 million of the 10 to 100 million species believed to exist currently, the other much larger unknown segment also obeys your law. That seems unlikely, but feel free to make your arguments. I'm eager to learn if you can actually do this.

[steveb]

A squid might want to argue this point, or perhaps an ET with a bigger database of what's out there.

Well, the squid can't argue, so I win that one. However, when ET shows up, I'm sure he will win; hands (or whatever he has) down. :p

[Bill_Marsden]

Oh, I don't know. I picked squids because they have relatively large brains, and could easily use color and shapes as a communication medium. Octopus love puzzles, and solving them. Intelligence to us is tool using, but there may be other standards.

Only reason what I say is vaguely possible is we still have a lot of research to do. We've only found where giant squid come from in the last 5 or less years.

[steveb]

Oh, I don't know. I picked squids because they have relatively large brains, and could easily use color and shapes as a communication medium.

Well, I was just joking around. Squids are definitely a good example to pick. They would seem to be at the high end of the scale in the Mollusca Phylum. Even though that Phylum is considered to be "less advanced" in the sense that Chordata and Anthropoda "rule the world", so to speak; there is probably no other non-Chordata or non-Anthropoda species as advanced as the giant squid.

It's also interesting that even though these two Phyla dominate the world, all the 19 or so other "more primitive" animal Phyla that have evolved in the past still have living species to represent them today. Some species are just very effective at filling their niche, and the giant squid is one of them. Is it because they are simple and well adapted; or, is it because they have adapted by developing complexities that we don't understand? Who can say?

I agree that you can't really make comparisons without clear standards and definitions. This is why I accepted studiot's comment about the Permian life complexity and was clear to state that my comment about "complexity" of mammals, and the human brain is a personal opinion. There are clear cases where you can say one thing is more complex than another. For example. A man is more complex than a virus for sure, and probably also more complex than a one cell organism. He is also probably more complex than plants, or worms or squid or even fish, and maybe even dogs. However, at some point you can't prove any of these statements, and can make counter arguments. This all boils down to the inability to define words clearly. Since we can't even agree on the definition of life itself, it's not likely we can agree on a definition for complexity of life.

[studiot]

I assumed you were talking about the complexity of the whole system, not one individual species.

[steveb]

I assumed you were talking about the complexity of the whole system, not one individual species.

Quite right. I was talking about the whole system. I was just subconsciously adding mammals and humans into the mix, and figuring that new classes, orders, families etc., as well as new structure (middle ear or big brains for example), have appeared since then.

However, you made me rethink this. I don't have a clear definition of the word complexity which can be used to say the we currently have more complexity than the Permian. It's just a gut level feeling or opinion that I have. I can't help but be biased and feel that a mass extinction in our time would be much more tragic than the Permian mass extinction.

Even with all our flaws, humans are amazing animals. The extinction of humans, or worse yet, the entire Mammalian order, or even a large fraction of it, seems like a great loss. The distilled complexity in the human brain was the product of a hard fought evolutionary battle through the eons. Will a caldera or a meteor ultimately snuff it out? Some theories suggest that the Permian extinction was partially due to caldera/volcanic explosions. Also, there is a theory that a huge caldera explosion about 75 thousand years ago brought the human population down to only a few thousand people. That was close, and similar events in the future are inevitable. It's difficult to think on the time scale of millions of years when our recorded history is less than 10000 years old, and our species history is less than 1 million years, but that's the kind of forethought needed to beat the odds.

[studiot]

I have long had more than an amateur interest in geosciences, mostly the geophysical side of things steering clear of paleantology.

However I recently read a hugely accessible book by Professor M J Benton

called

When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time

which I heartily recommend.

[jpanhalt]

I guess the climate for climate change is a little too hot for this Nobel laureate.

COPENHAGEN -- Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.
Source: Associated Press

John

[beenthere]

The above is a purely political assessment, intended to impugn an action for which the actual reason is not verifiable. Let us not slide into partisanship. There is more to climate change than parochial interests can encompass.

[jpanhalt]

The above is a purely political assessment, intended to impugn an action for which the actual reason is not verifiable. Let us not slide into partisanship. There is more to climate change than parochial interests can encompass.

Simply put, Mr. Gore is an internationally prominent spokesperson for global warming. Unlike what we would expect in any intellectual inquiry, even a political debate, Mr. Gore has refused to debate his position or to respond to critics. That is simply a statement of fact. It is not a partisan statement. His action with respect to the Copenhagen conference speaks for itself and is yet another refusal by him to face critics.

John

[beenthere]

I believe we have a situation where one political interest has a solid reason for casting climate change as this, and another interest wishes it to be seen and interpreted as that. Al Gore has no more fact and science on his side than does anyone else. But the issue is becoming highly political, in that someone's interests are advanced or harmed by asserting that there is/is not a crisis.

Science has been, but should not be politicized. Asserting that the data do not support Mr. Gore is acceptable. Comments that climate for climate change is a little too hot for this Nobel laureate is personal commentary.

You may indeed have a deeply-held personal position on this issue, but that hardly advances the interpretation of the data. Taking any arbitrary position before data have been assessed is to politicize the issue.

We have confusing data with regards to ocean acidification and actual increase of global temperature. We have incontrovertible evidence that glaciers are melting and global weather patterns are changing. This may or may not constitute a "crisis", but change is ongoing.

[Bill_Marsden]

Just to make life interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/ns/technology_and_science-science/ns/technology_and_science-science/

The point these scientists make is they don't have an agenda, they are just trying to interpret existing data. You can bet other people will take it and run with it though.

[beenthere]

I imagine using cyclic event coincidence may be less than accurate (and who cares? - remember that the Mayan calendar "predicts" the end of time [or space on the rock] in 2012. Hardly time to get chilly). I did find this little paper on the last ice ages, though - http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

[studiot]

Surely the point of any average is that it is made of components, some of which are above and some below?

So we are perhaps currently above average temperature, and have in the past been below.

[Bill_Marsden]

Its a cold comfort being it -20°F weather knowing it is only going to last 20 or so years. :D

[jpanhalt]

Here is part of an email from the Director of the (CRU) Climate Project (Phil Jones) who recently stepped down temporarily. Sorry for the formatting.

Highlighting has been added of some items, shown in blue.
John



At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed. Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil

[studiot]

The problem I have with the Charles Choi article (thanks Bill) is that as I understand it the water from the large North American prehistoric lake was discharged into the North Pacific, not the North Atlantic.

Apart from this rather obvious slip, the worries about the 'ocean conveyor' are very real and pressing. We are a long way from fully understanding it.

[beenthere]

That Pacific discharge path is correct for at least one lake. The water flowed over portions of Washington state, washing off the topsoil and leaving the equivalent of stream rifle marks ground into the underlying bedrock. Those riffles were about 100 yards peak to peak.

http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/

There was another series whose discharge carved the Mississippi valley. http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/browse/glacflds/glacflds.htm

[Duane P Wetick]

It was recently shown that ice in the arctic that has been there over 3000 years is breaking up. I don't know about you, but I think that is a little bit alarming! The satellite photography from outer space is the definitive source for the gobal changes that are occurring; ie: it is greening earlier in the year and farther north than usual. When the waves start lapping at the foot of the white house steps, that will be the administration's confirmation that the world is getting warmer!

Regards, DPW [ Spent years making heaters out of op-amps.]

[HarveyH42]

Not really a field of huge interest with me, but pretty sure they taught in school that the planet was a much warmer place during the dinosaur days on Earth, up until the Ice Age, which created much of the glaciers and polar ice, that is now melting at such an 'alarming' rate. I just don't buy into this is something man-made, or there is much we can do to effect it. Seems to me the the planet is just recovering, from the Ice Age that was apparently cause by the impact of a huge meteor or small asteroid.

Instead of wasting time and resources trying to control/slow a natural process, that is going to keep on, regardless of our puny efforts. We should be working on ways we can adapt to the changes that are coming. People are going to need relocating, business too. Rich guys are going to have to accept the loss of their high dollar, ocean front properties. These are the guys pushing the Global Warming hype, since they didn't get rich, spend their own money, and they most likely already know it's not going to amount to much.

I do believe in cleaning up the mess we have been making, these past thousand years or so. We shouldn't waste our resources, and make better use of what we take out of the ground. Maybe it takes some over hyped, catastrophic doomsday visions to get people doing the right thing for our only planet.

I don't think any of us will be around to see things get to point being sold by Al Gore, least not much to stir a panic over. Most likely, someone will get a hold of nuclear weapons, and use them in a car bomb or something.

[Paulo540]

Its a fact that 63.7% of statistics are made up...

[GetDeviceInfo]

Interesting segment last night on TV where a number of Canada's older Inuit where interviewed and they had the same story, and that was that thier skys have been changing from previous generations. Appears that simlpe observation indicates a slight shifting of the poles.