Adaptation, Global Warming and Evolution?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If you've followed my Lines of Evidence threads, you'll know that my primary focus is on understanding Evolution esp. Human Evolution.

Lately I've found myself being challenged about Global Warming and though I used to read some of the heated arguments between Glenn Morton and others, I've never really bothered to explore it beyond that. (It's not like I don't care, it's just that I haven't done the considerable study required to speak authoritatively on the subject.)

So when I found this essay on the Charles Darwin & Evolution site coupled with my current interest in it (though it seems to be getting to be quite a "hot" topic now days), I thought it might be worthwhile learning about the different views others have about this: Adaptation, Global Warming and Evolution? (with a particular focus on the Global Warming aspect of the essay)

Here's a starter for those who have done the study:

'...Global warming, with its inevitable effects on so many aspects of our world, will inevitably change the course of evolution – and evidence that this is already happening is all around us. There are still areas of speculation, but studies of the effects of past climatic events are strong indicators that changes in biodiversity are coming. It is probable that large animals with long generation times and smaller populations will face extinction due to lack of genetic variation. Smaller animals with short generation times and large populations are more likely to be able to adapt to the new environment they find themselves in.

Accepting that humans are primarily responsible for global warming means that we are also responsible for these changes in biodiversity. This may seem frightening, but it has happened before – humans have been altering the course of evolution by selective breeding for centuries. The difference this time is that we are not intentionally selecting traits or able to predict outcomes. ....'*

~~~
* http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=h2

A Book That Caught My Eye (as I was giving the topic a look) :

 

[RickG]

Global Warming/Climate Change denial is much like that of Young Earth Creationism. Misrepresented by a small group, mostly of people with no training or experience in the area.

 

[RickG]

'...Global warming, with its inevitable effects on so many aspects of our world, will inevitably change the course of evolution – and evidence that this is already happening is all around us. There are still areas of speculation, but studies of the effects of past climatic events are strong indicators that changes in biodiversity are coming. It is probable that large animals with long generation times and smaller populations will face extinction due to lack of genetic variation. Smaller animals with short generation times and large populations are more likely to be able to adapt to the new environment they find themselves in.

Indeed, environmental change, whether long term or abrupt, is a major factor in evolution.

Accepting that humans are primarily responsible for global warming means that we are also responsible for these changes in biodiversity. This may seem frightening, but it has happened before – humans have been altering the course of evolution by selective breeding for centuries. The difference this time is that we are not intentionally selecting traits or able to predict outcomes. ....'*

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. The last sentence seems to contradict the previous two. Perhaps a bit more explanation?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Indeed, environmental change, whether long term or abrupt, is a major factor in evolution.

I'm always a little skeptical when it comes to this sort of thing i.e. 'major factor' -- for it borders on the other extreme of the sort of thing one gets from Astrology.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. The last sentence seems to contradict the previous two. Perhaps a bit more explanation?

I didn't write it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Global Warming/Climate Change denial is much like that of Young Earth Creationism. Misrepresented by a small group, mostly of people with no training or experience in the area.

Are you saying there's not much science in the argument presented by the deniers? I always had the impression that there was a fair exchange going on.

 

[RickG]

I'm always a little skeptical when it comes to this sort of thing i.e. 'major factor' -- for it borders on the other extreme of the sort of thing one gets from Astrology.

The key word was "environmental" change, which would include warming, cooling, drought, excessive rain, etc. One of the things we hear from GW deniers is that scientists changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. In reality, that is completely false. Yes, GW is occurring on a global scale, but the climate is changing globally as well, especially with respect to drought or the opposite. There are also some regions that are experiencing cooler temperatures than normal.

 

[RickG]

Are you saying there's not much science in the argument presented by the deniers? I always had the impression that there was a fair exchange going on.

Absolutely! Most of what comes from the denial side is very much like that of creation science, deliberately misrepresented science, or at the very least intellectual dishonesty.

 

[SkyWriting]

'...Global warming, with its inevitable effects on so many aspects of our world, will inevitably change the course of evolution – and evidence that this is already happening is all around us.

Yes, change will change change. Let's check the historical records:

https://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+global+temperature&rlz=1C1AVNG_enUS637US637&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=u0BrVayRG8T8oASUuILwBQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1460&bih=780#imgrc=AOV-0WU9wK3apM%3A;S4dwMIQ5cAzOgM;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climate4you.com%2Fimages%2FVostokTemp0-420000%2520BP.gif;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climate4you.com%2FGlobalTemperatures.htm;880;422

Yah....I'm not see a whole lot of stability there....

Change wins.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The key word was "environmental" change, which would include warming, cooling, drought, excessive rain, etc. One of the things we hear from GW deniers is that scientists changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. In reality, that is completely false. Yes, GW is occurring on a global scale, but the climate is changing globally as well, especially with respect to drought or the opposite. There are also some regions that are experiencing cooler temperatures than normal.

I remember some of the graphs that were presented reflecting the changes, yet is there really enough data to convince people.

I remember the arguments about how these things are measured and though it might be very sophisticated in our times, we don't have that sort of accuracy the further back we go. You obviously know how graphs work.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Absolutely! Most of what comes from the denial side is very much like that of creation science, deliberately misrepresented science, or at the very least intellectual dishonesty.

I guess there are levels of credibility depending on who you are talking to.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Yes, change will change change. Let's check the historical records:

( argument by link removed by me )

Yah....I'm not see a whole lot of stability there....

Change wins.

If you want to participate in this thread, please would you present a more precise argument expressing your own particular view. ( this after all was the purpose of the OP ) : '....I thought it might be worthwhile learning about the different views others have about this: Adaptation, Global Warming and Evolution? (with a particular focus on the Global Warming aspect of the essay'

 

[SkyWriting]

'...Global warming, with its inevitable effects on so many aspects of our world, will inevitably change the course of evolution – and evidence that this is already happening is all around us.

Yes, changes in climate will effect changes in population. Agreed.
I'm sorry if my response didn't match your vision for responses.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Yes, changes in climate will effect changes in population. Agreed.
I'm sorry if my response didn't match your vision for responses.

I don't have a vision for responses, just that the answers are yours and not 1000s of websites located through your Google search. Even if you make the effort to sort through and choose one or two (or more) of the 1000s of websites you are pointing to, ones which you feel best represent your view (or the antithesis) and present a short summary of what it is you'd like to surrender as your view or contrary points -- that would be far better than what you're doing at the moment.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't have a vision for responses, just that the answers are yours and not 1000s of websites located through your Google search. Even if you make the effort to sort through and choose one or two (or more) of the 1000s of websites you are pointing to, ones which you feel best represent your view (or the antithesis) and present a short summary of what it is you'd like to surrender as your view or contrary points -- that would be far better than what you're doing at the moment.

I just did that. I'll go again.

As the climate changes, as scientists tell us it has for millions of years,
populations will rise and fall.

For us very lucky people, the climate has been unusually stable for about
50,000 years, say researchers.

Past performance of climate is not a good predictor of future results.
This is indicated by the poor performance of climate models.
Still, the likelihood of continued mild climate shifts is very low.
A 5 degree swing in global temperatures is "normal" for the planet.
We should plan for this no matter if the current climate patterns
are influenced by man or not. I believe past ones were not.

 

[Loudmouth]

I just did that. I'll go again.

As the climate changes, as scientists tell us it has for millions of years,
populations will rise and fall.

For us very lucky people, the climate has been unusually stable for about
50,000 years, say researchers.

Past performance of climate is not a good predictor of future results.
This is indicated by the poor performance of climate models.
Still, the likelihood of continued mild climate shifts is very low.
A 5 degree swing in global temperatures is "normal" for the planet.
We should plan for this no matter if the current climate patterns
are influenced by man or not. It seems past ones were not.

It is normal and natural for people to die. Does that mean that we can't arrest anyone for murder?

 

[SkyWriting]

Global Warming/Climate Change denial is much like that of Young Earth Creationism. Misrepresented by a small group, mostly of people with no training or experience in the area.

Those who are experienced at climate predicting currently have a failing
grade in class and are on academic probation. Below is one of the least
critical surveys.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-cmep-paper.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

Those who are experienced at climate predicting currently have a failing
grade in class and are on academic probation. Below is one of the least
critical surveys.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-cmep-paper.pdf

Would it be worth the effort showing you climate models that are accurate?

 

[RickG]

Those who are experienced at climate predicting currently have a failing
grade in class and are on academic probation. Below is one of the least
critical surveys.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-cmep-paper.pdf

Your link leads to a paper by Aiguo Dai, et al. 2005. It doesn't support your claim in the least. And just out of interest, what aspect of climate predicting are you talking about. I gather you don't know that climate models are designed to run a number of scenarios based on specific conditions. If this happens, we expect this, or if this happens, we expect this, etc.; When looking back historically at what past climate models have predicted, the ones that used closest to the conditions that actually happened in their scenario are the ones that predicted best. Picking climate model scenarios that did not run on actual historical conditions and saying the model is useless is dishonest.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your link leads to a paper by Aiguo Dai, et al. 2005. It doesn't support your claim in the least. And just out of interest, what aspect of climate predicting are you talking about. I gather you don't know that climate models are designed to run a number of scenarios based on specific conditions. If this happens, we expect this, or if this happens, we expect this, etc.; When looking back historically at what past climate models have predicted, the ones that used closest to the conditions that actually happened in their scenario are the ones that predicted best. Picking climate model scenarios that did not run on actual historical conditions and saying the model is useless is dishonest.

Which models are you referring to? Actually, you made no references to any models in your honest post.
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

 

[SkyWriting]

Your link leads to a paper by Aiguo Dai, et al. 2005. It doesn't support your claim in the least.

You asked me not to support my claims.
You also said you would be happy with my
responses because you have no preconceived
vision of how I am supposed to respond.

"I don't have a vision for responses, just that the answers are yours and not 1000s of websites..."