BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-27-2009, 10:58 AM   #106
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:42 PM
Yeah, that pretty much sums up his opposition...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 03:13 PM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 06:42 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If 20 times the C02 doesn't raise the temperature back then why would it now? The argument is about the atmosphere and radiation being trapped not the development of life. Geologists are aware of where the plates likely were. Many of the "deniers" are geologists precisely because they go farther back than climatologists.
That's not how the climate system works; there's no linear temperature response to changes in CO2. Instead, a CO2 increase usually has a relatively low temperature effect which in turn can affect any number of feedback systems, some of which are positive, others are negative (in terms of climate forcings). It's extremely important to take into account conditions "on the ground" when studying the paleoclimate. And anybody who knows anything about biology, knows that life plays a large role in the global carbon cycle.

I believe it's hypothesized that relatively high levels of greenhouse gasses during the Precambrium is the most important reason that Earth's surface wasn't completely covered in ice, considering how the sun was considerably weaker at that time. Of course, I'm talking about early Precambrium here.

I find your remark on geologists very odd. Most of the (paleo)climatologists I know, started of as geologists and specialized later on. Climate studies usually involve scientists of any variety of disciplines (geologists, climatologists, oceanographers, biologists, etc.), so I'm curious about where you got that idea.
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 10-27-2009, 07:26 PM   #108
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If 20 times the C02 doesn't raise the temperature back then why would it now? The argument is about the atmosphere and radiation being trapped not the development of life. Geologists are aware of where the plates likely were. Many of the "deniers" are geologists precisely because they go farther back than climatologists.
Land plants have a huge role in regulating the carbon cycle (and carbon dioxide didn't drop significantly until plants invaded the land during the Devonian), reef building animals are involved in the carbon cycle (they make limestone carbonates that act as carbon sinks), surface reflectance properties impact how much energy is absorbed from the sun in a huge way (barren land reflects more energy away).

I don't know how the Cambrian palaeoclimate operated, but I do know that the world was sufficiently different to allow for high carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a minimally increased temperature (wikipedia gives 7 degrees above current). This is a complicated scientific puzzle, not a proof that carbon has nothing to do with climate to be used for a political agenda.

You are taking a reactionary minority position on a scientific issue (the facts aren't democratic - but that doesn't mean that the minority is usually right). A position you aren't reaching on the basis of the evidence, rather your political ideology, the split between accepting anthropogenic global warming is mostly political.

A few of the criticisms by climate change sceptics are legitimate, but the solution is more research, and more public funding for research. If you are serious about finding out the truth or falsity of global warming, and what to do about it then you ought to support more scientific research - and less obscurantist politics.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-28-2009, 12:17 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I don't know how the Cambrian palaeoclimate operated, but I do know that the world was sufficiently different to allow for high carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a minimally increased temperature (wikipedia gives 7 degrees above current). This is a complicated scientific puzzle, not a proof that carbon has nothing to do with climate to be used for a political agenda.

You are taking a reactionary minority position on a scientific issue (the facts aren't democratic - but that doesn't mean that the minority is usually right). A position you aren't reaching on the basis of the evidence, rather your political ideology, the split between accepting anthropogenic global warming is mostly political.

A few of the criticisms by climate change sceptics are legitimate, but the solution is more research, and more public funding for research. If you are serious about finding out the truth or falsity of global warming, and what to do about it then you ought to support more scientific research - and less obscurantist politics.
Both sides have "facts" and to treat them as absolute reality is disturbing. Facts have to compete until they are so good that we have little ability to defeat them with new evidence. Science doesn't stop. We can't put 20 times the C02 in the next 100 years to even compete with the Cambrian period so the world is not a climate controlled environment where we have complete control. Why call the Cambrian period so complex that its data can't be used to refute Al Gore's claims and then look at our current climate as simple enough to blame us as the main culprit?

Ignoring the politics of the U.N. and calling anyone who disagrees obscurant doesn't convince. Reactionary politics is important in protecting the public against radical politics. It serves a purpose. Regulating C02 when we put a small amount of it compared to nature is ridiculous. If radiation is getting out (according to Lindzen) that is devastating evidence against the IPCC who think that the atmosphere is collecting it in an accelerating fashion. This is going to be a tug of war but I think the U.N. will have to lose. If we are not going to destroy industry to stop C02 (because the world doesn't seem to follow Kyoto even when it tries to) then C02 will increase whether you believe one side or the other. Remember some facts are better than others and yes I agree we should do more research but you have to admit that the IPCC is simplifying the argument with by targeting C02. They haven't found proof how much is natural and how much is us. I could easily call them obscurant and political. Especially when they openly say the want to get rid of the medieval warming period and process the data into a hockey stick. Remember the deniers are also targeting how the data is processed and the IPCC models which keep changing downward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTeeth View Post
I find your remark on geologists very odd. Most of the (paleo)climatologists I know, started of as geologists and specialized later on. Climate studies usually involve scientists of any variety of disciplines (geologists, climatologists, oceanographers, biologists, etc.), so I'm curious about where you got that idea.
Yeah well I don't know about Paleoclimatologists but many of the deniers are often geologists and attack C02 as the main warming culprit with data that goes back before more modern records. That's my impression. I know there are genuine climatologists on the deniers side, though more on the IPCC side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTeeth View Post
That's not how the climate system works; there's no linear temperature response to changes in CO2.
According to Al Gore temperature follows C02 in a linear fashion. Is it linear or is it not? This is exactly what I mean. The propaganda keeps squirming and changing its stance all the time. Why would anyone take it seriously? Environmentalists have been using alarmist stances throughout the 20th century with similar bad predictions and with a similar authority that their science is enough proof. Then Monckton, and others, want to debate Gore and he avoids it. The public smells blood and that's why Copenhagen will probably disappoint the U.N.

I think this sums up the political interference the deniers believe is happening with the U.N. (Summary for policy makers):

An Expensive Urban Legend � Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Quote:
I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.

But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty. The actual scientific basis for the plausible hypothesis that humans could be responsible for most recent warming is contained in the cautious scientific language of many scientific papers. Unfortunately, most of the uncertainties and caveats are then minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Summary was clearly meant to instill maximum alarm from a minimum amount of direct evidence.

Next, politicians seized upon the SP, further simplifying and extrapolating its claims to the level of a “climate crisis”. Other politicians embellished the tale even more by claiming they “saw” global warming in Greenland as if it was a sighting of Sasquatch, or that they felt it when they fly in airplanes.

Just as the tales of marauding colonies of alligators living in New York City sewers are based upon some kernel of truth, so too is the science behind anthropogenic global warming. But there is a big difference between reports of people finding pet alligators that have escaped their owners, versus city workers having their limbs torn off by roving colonies of subterranean monsters.

In the case of global warming, the “putatively trustworthy sources” would be the consensus of the world’s scientists. The scientific consensus, after all, says that global warming is…is what? Is happening? Is severe? Is manmade? Is going to burn the Earth up if we do not act? It turns out that those who claim consensus either do not explicitly state what that consensus is about, or they make up something that supports their preconceived notions.

If the consensus is that the presence of humans on Earth has some influence on the climate system, then I would have to even include myself in that consensus. After all, the same thing can be said of the presence of trees on Earth, and hopefully we have at least the same rights as trees do. But too often the consensus is some vague, fill-in-the-blank, implied assumption where the definition of “climate change” includes the phrase “humans are evil”.
Quote:
And it is also a good bet that 100% of those scientists surveyed were funded by the government only after they submitted research proposals which implicitly or explicitly stated they believed in anthropogenic global warming to begin with. If you submit a research proposal to look for alternative explanations for global warming (say, natural climate cycles), it is virtually guaranteed you will not get funded. Is it any wonder that scientists who are required to accept the current scientific orthodoxy in order to receive continued funding, then later agree with that orthodoxy when surveyed? Well, duh.

In my experience, the public has the mistaken impression that a lot of climate research has gone into the search for alternative explanations for warming. They are astounded when I tell them that virtually no research has been performed into the possibility that warming is just part of a natural cycle generated within the climate system itself.
We should spend more on research but the emphasis should be similar on natural causes as well as anthropogenic C02.

Here's a 2007 Lindzen summary:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...0_TakingGr.pdf

Quote:
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Using basic theory, modeling results and observations, we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm–assuming current observed surface and tropospheric trends and model depictions of greenhouse warming are correct. The virtue of the approach presented is that it offers critical testable points for assessing the argument. We next showed that the defense of the attribution of recent warming to man involves an observed warming that is smaller than expected, and where the attribution, itself, depends on relatively subjective claims concerning the ability of current models to accurately portray natural unforced climate variability. Thus, the claim that models cannot account for recent warming without external forcing is held to imply the role of human forcing. To be sure, current models can simulate the recent trend in surface temperature, but only by invoking largely unknown properties of aerosols and ocean delay in order to cancel most of the greenhouse warming (Schwartz et al., 2007). Finally, we note substantial corroborating work showing low climate sensitivity.

Ultimately, however, one must recognize how small the difference is between the estimation that the anthropogenic contribution to recent surface warming is on the order of 1/3, and the iconic claim that it is likely that the human contribution is more than 1/2. Alarm, we see, actually demands much more that the iconic statement itself. It requires that greenhouse warming actually be larger than what has been observed, that about half of it be cancelled by essentially unknown aerosols, and that the aerosols soon disappear. Alarm does not stem directly from the iconic claim, but rather from the uncertainty in the claim, which lumps together greenhouse gas additions and the cancelling aerosol contributions (assuming that they indeed cancel warming), and suggests that the sum is responsible for more than half of the observed surface warming. What this paper attempts to do is point the way to a simple, physically sound approach to reducing uncertainty and establishing estimates of climate sensitivity that are focused and testable. Such an approach would seem to be more comfortable for science than the current emphasis on models testing models, large ranges of persistent uncertainty, and reliance on alleged consensus. Hopefully, this paper has also clarified why significant doubt persists concerning the remarkably politicized issue of global warming alarm.
So it is clear to me that politics and economics is involved in just about anything. If you need funding for research there are often political influences that come with the money and that's why it takes a long time to get agreement on facts because the science just needs to get better so those influences can't change how the data is interpreted.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-28-2009, 01:19 PM   #110
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:42 PM
That was a long post so let me sum it up for some of you folks.

The UN wants to destroy capitalism so they invented Global Warming. It doesn't matter who or what evidence you present he'll find a way to blame the UN. If you found a geologist who was funded by your Republican grandfather and the science agreed with global warming then it's the UN's fault.

Oh, and junk science is fact.

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-28-2009, 09:43 PM   #111
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Both sides have "facts" and to treat them as absolute reality is disturbing. Facts have to compete until they are so good that we have little ability to defeat them with new evidence. Science doesn't stop. We can't put 20 times the C02 in the next 100 years to even compete with the Cambrian period so the world is not a climate controlled environment where we have complete control. Why call the Cambrian period so complex that its data can't be used to refute Al Gore's claims and then look at our current climate as simple enough to blame us as the main culprit?
The current climate regime is different than that of the Cambrian, we can draw the causal connection between CO2 and climate change today because we have access to the workings of the Earth today, we lack a Cambrian world to see in action and we have to piece it together from the geological record.

Your characterisation of what constitutes evidence in science and the role it ought to play in policy is disturbing, it seems that you want to ignore anything that confronts your bias and expect the world to suspend judgement until you make up your mind.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 10:45 AM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The current climate regime is different than that of the Cambrian, we can draw the causal connection between CO2 and climate change today because we have access to the workings of the Earth today, we lack a Cambrian world to see in action and we have to piece it together from the geological record.

Your characterisation of what constitutes evidence in science and the role it ought to play in policy is disturbing, it seems that you want to ignore anything that confronts your bias and expect the world to suspend judgement until you make up your mind.
I could easily say the same about you guys. What you guys call junk science has been peer reviewed and it is ignored. I find that "disturbing" as well. Welcome to the world of politicized science. That's why Al Gore is so good at ignoring debates. The Cambrian period is not a linear connection for C02 but today it is and we need to "act now". You can't have your cake and eat it too. They should study natural causes just as hard as they do C02.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
That was a long post so let me sum it up for some of you folks.

The UN wants to destroy capitalism so they invented Global Warming. It doesn't matter who or what evidence you present he'll find a way to blame the UN. If you found a geologist who was funded by your Republican grandfather and the science agreed with global warming then it's the UN's fault.

Oh, and junk science is fact.

Is there a social program you DON'T like? If it's such a disaster I want to see people actually living the lives they tell everyone else to live. I still stand with the fact that there are people that want to profit from cap and trade and increase their standard of living (hence C02 emissions) and not decrease them. If the guy who was an original founder of Greenpeace leaves because there are too many Marxists why wouldn't I be skeptical? If environmentalists have a horrible trackrecord of predicting disasters it would actually be sane to take them with a grain of salt. We even have quotes in Bjorn Lomborg's book and on Monckton's presentation where scientists and politicians feel that it's okay to exagerrate the evidence for a stated goal. Even you said that they are lazy and use alarmism to speed things up. For some people that is not science but politics. Not everyone is afraid of ridicule for disagreeing and many are FED UP with the shrill end of the world scenarios that aren't even happening. We've been brainwashed to look at all changes in weather as being our fault. That may be normal in your world but it's not for most people. These people are so disgusting they use the cuteness of polar bears to tug at children's emotions even when they are increasing and actually survived warmer periods when there was less ice. Not everyone is sheep. Not everyone cares about agreement. Monckton's presentation is over an hour and you can't find ONE thing that might give you pause?

YouTube - 35 Inconvenient Truths part 1

YouTube - 35 Inconvenient Truths part 2

You can't find ONE thing that bothers you here?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 11:43 AM   #113
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Here's some more crazy "deniers":

Global Warming Petition Project

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_ar...ew_OISM150.pdf

There's lots of scientists that find fault with many claims.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 01:50 PM   #114
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Is there a social program you DON'T like?
This is why I no longer will talk to you about this subject. My arguments have always been science, you always talked around it, and then you come back by reducing the whole notion to a "social program"? You look very ignorant right now. Bye
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 08:41 PM   #115
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:42 PM
YouTube - 2009 Sea Ice Update
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 11:47 AM   #116
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Climate change has to be blamed on man? Climate has always changed and they admit that new ice is growing from 2007. During the medieval warming period Greenland was called "Greenland" for a reason and was farmed. This is not some "smoking gun" that it's man. If anything it shows the arrogance that anyone should challenge them and calling "deniers" boneheads. They keep looking at what's happening and blaming man no matter what. That looks like a belief not a scientific cause of warming by manmade C02. It's the typical mixing of cause and effect again.

What are their reasons that C02 is the culprit? We have more C02 and new ice is increasing. Just because there is a lag and some old ice melts and new ice increases on top of it doesn't mean it is man's C02 output that is the culprit. From this video am I to assert that planet earth should never change? To say that 2007 is the lowest on record. How far back does the record go? 1978? Obviously not back to the medieval warming period.

BTW I love the graphics, especially when they start in January so we get the natural melting along with the the melting they are worrying about.

You should also check out the Holocene Climate Optimum. I'm pretty sure ice retreated back then too and no industrialization existed back then. Remember the argument is about anthropogenic C02.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
This is why I no longer will talk to you about this subject. My arguments have always been science, you always talked around it, and then you come back by reducing the whole notion to a "social program"? You look very ignorant right now. Bye
I've put plenty of science up. Before I started posting people were posting jokes. I also find it funny that you think this should only be about science. Some people believe in man made global warming and think it's cheaper to adapt to it than to shut down coal plants. Since the U.N. is a political body and cap and trade is about economics I think those subjects should be included along with science. The science is leading to public policy that affects everyone.

Here's a new presentation by Lindzen:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...n-talk-pdf.pdf

These quotes by Mike Hulme are interesting:

Quote:
“The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.

Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.

We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.

These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true' and ‘false'"
See BVS? Politics.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 03:13 PM   #117
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
See BVS? Politics.
You seem like a pretty logical guy, if this were not a political issue and it was just a display of the science, I'm almost positive you would believe that climate change is an issue. For there's only one reason that anyone would go to the lengths that you do to frame an argument in such a way...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-02-2009, 11:02 AM   #118
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 12:42 AM


In dead Vineyard oaks, a warming warning

By Beth Daley, Boston Globe Staff | November 2, 2009

WEST TISBURY - Ever since a vast tract of Martha’s Vineyard forest died two years ago, visitors who stumbled upon the graveyard of gray stalks have called it eerie, bizarre, and sad.

Now scientists are calling it something else: a possible climate change lesson.

The 500 acres of dead oak trees were the epicenter of an islandwide infestation of caterpillars that munched their way through millions of leaves for three consecutive springs ending in 2007. Then a severe summer drought hit the island, finishing off tens of thousands of the weakened trees.

“I have never seen anything like what has happened on Martha’s Vineyard in New England,’’ said David Foster, a Harvard University ecologist. “Usually you walk through forests and see some dead trees, but here, it’s hundreds of acres and almost all of the trees in it are dead.’’

Ordinarily, such catastrophic damage would be chalked up to bad luck. But Foster, who is also director of Harvard Forest, the university’s experimental forest in Petersham, and other researchers recently discovered a vast die-off of Cape Cod coastal oak trees 5,000 years ago during an abrupt warming period. They found evidence of the forest’s demise in sediment samples from under lakes and ponds, and they speculate that the ancient - and far smaller contemporary - episodes may have roots in the same type of one-two climate punch: more-active bugs coupled with an intense drought.

Scientists predict that in a warming world, insects will thrive, and droughts and other extreme weather will become commonplace. With the prospect of more numerous bugs feasting on weakened trees, Foster wonders whether the recent die-off is a harbinger of more catastrophic ones in the future. While the dead trees will certainly be replaced by new ones, what species repopulate forests has ramifications for everything from lichen to leaf-peepers.

“These trees control the foundation of an ecosystem,’’ said Foster, whose group has just been awarded $100,000 from the National Science Foundation to study the Vineyard forest. “What happens when they collapse? We are trying to understand how everything in that forest copes.’’

Nobody foresaw the death of the oaks. In the spring of 2004, an intense caterpillar infestation gripped the trees for two weeks, raining thousands of inch-long green-and-gray caterpillars on the heads of islanders and visitors.

Many thought the bugs were the despised European winter moth that shows up in horror-movie-like numbers off the island, but scientists were able to confirm that most of the bugs were a native fall cankerworm. Not that the news was much better: Cankerworm moth numbers were legendary that winter when they emerged as adults, splattering car windshields so thoroughly that drivers could hardly see.

“The first year, it was a shock’’ that the leaves were disappearing so quickly, said Tim Boland, executive director of the Polly Hill Arboretum in West Tisbury, as he picked his way last week over lichen-covered dead oak branches that littered a narrow Arboretum path.

“Then it was, ‘They came. They went. Let’s hope they don’t come again.’ But they did . . . twice. And so did the drought,’’ he said, pointing to the lifeless trees around him that are part of the epicenter of the destruction. About 17 acres of the Arboretum’s trees were killed off.

The 2007 dry period began in July, with less than 2 inches of rain that month, according to the National Weather Service. Thousands of trees began dying across the island but for some reason, virtually all the trees in the 500-acre swath did. Boland suggests the forest’s location may be partly to blame - elevated and sandy, the ground may not have been able to hold enough water for the weakened trees. Foster isn’t sure that is the answer.

Across the island, communities are struggling to deal with dead trees that pose a safety hazard if they fall on roads or walking paths. In West Tisbury, executive secretary Jennifer Rand said, officials are going after only the “deadest of the dead’’ trees because there is not enough money to remove them all.

Polly Hill and private landowners in the dead-oak epicenter are not cutting the trees, a situation that is allowing Foster to understand how the forest recovers on its own.

The researchers have tantalizing clues to their climate theory. First, by examining long, cylindrical cores of sediment extracted from Cape Cod lakes and Vineyard ponds, they discovered that oak pollen dramatically declined about 5,000 years ago - at the same time as other sediment and vegetation records indicated warmer temperatures and drought conditions.

Second, scientists have known for years that New England’s vast hemlock populations also crashed 5,000 years ago, a situation initially attributed to insects because hemlock pests were found in a peat bog sample from that time.

But it would be unusual to have two enormous populations of trees crash at the same time, suggesting there was an underlying reason at play, such as climate. While just a pest outbreak or a drought may not have killed the trees, the combination - whether it was a drought followed by pests or vice-versa - could have wiped them out.

“Insects are always around with patchy disturbances, but you don’t see them wipe out entire species,’’ said Wyatt Oswald, assistant professor of science at Emerson College and a Harvard Forest research fellow who is studying the phenomenon.

There is another link to today. Just like 5,000 years ago, a pest is wiping out New England’s majestic hemlock trees. The nonnative woolly adelgid is mostly contained in southern New England because scientists believe it’s too cold for the insects to advance northward. But New England winters have warmed around 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 40 years, and researchers believe the pest will make inroads into more northern regions as temperatures warm.

“It’s what makes the story interesting,’’ Oswald said. “The same two types of trees are dying at the same time’’ today, just as they did 5,000 years ago.

Today, the researchers are carefully watching what grows on the forest floor now that the sun is no longer blocked by oak leaves. Thorny catbriar and sassafras are filling in the gaps between the dead oak trunks. And beech trees are gaining a stronger foothold. Scientists say the pollen record shows the same thing happened 5,000 years ago, when the coastal oaks gave way to beech.

“Climate change will drive changes in the forest,’’ said Harvard’s Foster. “But they will be more rapid if the forest is also impacted by bugs.’’
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 10:27 AM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Quote:
In his latest book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, the man who won a Nobel prize in 2007 for his touring slideshow on disappearing polar ice and other consequences of climate change, concludes: "Simply laying out the facts won't work."

Instead, Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message - now put out by hundreds of volunteers - to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

"I've done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It's probably my favourite version, but I don't use it very often because it can come off as proselytising," Gore tells Newsweek.
Quote:
In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide - while the focus of the politics of climate change - produces around 40% of the actual warming.
Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.

"Over the years I have been among those who focused most of all on CO2, and I think that's still justified," he told the magazine. "But a comprehensive plan to solve the climate crisis has to widen the focus to encompass strategies for all" of the greenhouse culprits identified in the Nasa study.
Or we can get the science right before we start creating new age religions?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 08:41 PM   #120
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Al Gore Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria With Media’s Help | NewsBusters.org
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com