Adaptation, Global Warming and Evolution?

[RickG]

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.

In Post #20 you seem to have me and Lewis mixed up as to who said what.

 

[RickG]

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

I'm referring to the models described in the UNC paper you linked. Since you cited that paper and stated how bad climate science is, I think you need to describe in "that" paper specifically the problem(s) you see. You did read the paper you linked didn't you?

 

[SkyWriting]

In Post #20 you seem to have me and Lewis mixed up as to who said what.

Sorry, that could well be. This the evolution of this forum is challenging.

 

[RickG]

Getting back on topic, I think it is important to understand that besides global warming, we are experiencing global climate change. In other words, it is the global warming that is fueling global climate change, and climate change is much more than just temperatures. One of the serious problems would be regional climate conditions with respect to agriculture, where once agriculturally rich regions can no longer support their products due to either too much rain, or the lack of adequate amounts. This can also cause wildlife to migrate from their natural habitats. And probably most serious is the acidification of the oceans. Here's some sources describing these problems.

http://www.geneseo.edu/~bosch/Hoegh-Guldberg.pdf
http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geog5921/paper_acidification_Doney2009.pdf
http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/370/Orr2004-12-27985_text.pdf?sequence=1
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/x...oologyExploringLocalAdaptation.pdf?sequence=4

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Even if global warming wasn't a thing, we are still impacting the environment via industrial waste and other toxins. Most of which cause more drastic and dire changes than global warming. Acid rain, for example, is not slow, it happens really fast once industry increases in an area, and it kills anything that cannot withstand acidic pH's, some as bad as 3 (as acidic as lemons). It can leave chemical burns on trees, and kill many aquatic based creatures. Thus, creating selective pressures that favor organisms that can survive and thrive in acidic conditions. Heck, in Chernobyl, there is a fungus that gets energy from radiation native just to that area.

 

[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.

No there is not. In fact the denial side is almost a carbon copy of the tobacco industry tactics. As for the debate there have been a number of studies looking specifically at the climate science literature and evaluating what the consensus is, which has been found to be over 97% not only saying that it is warming but the major cause is anthropogenic.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Getting back on topic, I think it is important to understand that besides global warming, we are experiencing global climate change. In other words, it is the global warming that is fueling global climate change, and climate change is much more than just temperatures. One of the serious problems would be regional climate conditions with respect to agriculture, where once agriculturally rich regions can no longer support their products due to either too much rain, or the lack of adequate amounts. This can also cause wildlife to migrate from their natural habitats. And probably most serious is the acidification of the oceans. Here's some sources describing these problems.

http://www.geneseo.edu/~bosch/Hoegh-Guldberg.pdf
http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geog5921/paper_acidification_Doney2009.pdf
http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/370/Orr2004-12-27985_text.pdf?sequence=1
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/x...oologyExploringLocalAdaptation.pdf?sequence=4

No there is not. In fact the denial side is almost a carbon copy of the tobacco industry tactics. As for the debate there have been a number of studies looking specifically at the climate science literature and evaluating what the consensus is, which has been found to be over 97% not only saying that it is warming but the major cause is anthropogenic.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Thank you for your useful replies, RickG.
I'll give 'em a read and think and return with a response, once I have.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Thought I'd repeat that for emphasis.

 

[RickG]

Thought I'd repeat that for emphasis.

Sky's comment and your emphasis would be considerably incorrect. In climate science temperature is universally stated in degrees Celsius. A five degree change is enormous with respect to climate. For example, the little ice age which is an northern hemisphere anomaly was on a change of less than 1 deg. C. A drop of 5 deg. C would have us locked in another full blown ice age.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Thought I'd repeat that for emphasis.

'.... no matter if the current climate patterns
are influenced by man or not. ....'

Yet if one considers some of the data (articles) presented by RickG, there's no need to be skeptical about whether or not it is caused by humans or not. I refer: http://bcove.me/c1li8rcl & http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

[SkyWriting]

Yet if one considers some of the data (articles) presented by RickG, there's no need to be skeptical about whether or not it is caused by humans or not. I refer: http://bcove.me/c1li8rcl & http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

You then need to show that the total elimination of human influence will reverse any imagined current predictions.
You THEN need to show that YOU would personally be willing to do this, yourself.
You THEN need to show how you have influenced ONE other person to also stop adding to the problem.
You then need to show how that perfected process can be applied across every other culture in the world.

(You may start with line one for now.)

 

[Loudmouth]

You then need to show that the total elimination of human influence will reverse any imagined current predictions.

That is already tested against paleoclimates.

You THEN need to show that YOU would personally be willing to do this, yourself.

That's like saying that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer if the scientist keeps smoking them.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.)

When you say Global Warming are you talking about natural reoccurring warm periods or pseudo-scientific "man-made" global warming? Since the term global warming has been falsely associated with being man-made, this makes quite a difference.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's like saying that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer if the scientist keeps smoking them.

Kind of like claiming second hand smoke causes cancer when one automobile produces more cancerous byproducts in one hour than a pack of cigarettes in a month? Wouldn't want to blame the transportation though - too important to society.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sky's comment and your emphasis would be considerably incorrect. In climate science temperature is universally stated in degrees Celsius. A five degree change is enormous with respect to climate. For example, the little ice age which is an northern hemisphere anomaly was on a change of less than 1 deg. C. A drop of 5 deg. C would have us locked in another full blown ice age.

Don't blame me for bringing you up to speed. This report is almost 15 years old.

Some highlights and remaining open questions
The records confirm that large and rapid temperature oscillations have
occurred through most of the last 110,000 year period. They are of a scale
that has not been experienced during the past 10,000 years in which
human society mainly developed.

A few of these stadial/interstadial oscillations such as the "Younger Dryas"
cold period have been known already from pollen and other records. Many
more were found in previous Greenland ice cores (Camp Century, Dye3)
but most of the data indicating that oscillations had occurred had come
from ice close to bedrock where stratigraphic disturbances could not be
excluded.

In the Summit ice core the past 110,000 years are represented in ice far
enough above bedrock to rule out such disturbances. The perfect agreement
of the records of the GRIP and the GISP-2 ice cores down to this depth
provides further evidence for the climatic character indicated by the records.

Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings.
A temperature increase of 5°C can occur in a few decades.



If I may show the normal chaotic pattern we can expect? (Below)

 

[Loudmouth]

Kind of like claiming second hand smoke causes cancer when one automobile produces more cancerous byproducts in one hour than a pack of cigarettes in a month? Wouldn't want to blame the transportation though - too important to society.

You are proving my point.

 

[Loudmouth]

When you say Global Warming are you talking about natural reoccurring warm periods or pseudo-scientific "man-made" global warming?

We are referring to the very real science of the greenhouse effect.

 

[RickG]

You then need to show that the total elimination of human influence will reverse any imagined current predictions.

It is well understood and documented as to what specific "forcings" cause climate change. What is seen in the data is that the CO2 is currently the one forcing by far that is contributing the most. On average a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels causes a temperature increase of soem 3.5 deg. C. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 400 ppm and has been quantified to be of anthropogenic sources; we are well on our way. Paleoclimate-wise, CO2 has not been as high as the current level for some 15-20 million years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

 

[SkyWriting]

It is well understood and documented as to what specific "forcings" cause climate change.

If that were true....then the models would be correct?

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/r...lobal-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz3c7HIvuZr

 

[RickG]

Don't blame me for bringing you up to speed. This report is almost 15 years old.

Some highlights and remaining open questions
The records confirm that large and rapid temperature oscillations have
occurred through most of the last 110,000 year period. They are of a scale
that has not been experienced during the past 10,000 years in which
human society mainly developed.

A few of these stadial/interstadial oscillations such as the "Younger Dryas"
cold period have been known already from pollen and other records. Many
more were found in previous Greenland ice cores (Camp Century, Dye3)
but most of the data indicating that oscillations had occurred had come
from ice close to bedrock where stratigraphic disturbances could not be
excluded.

In the Summit ice core the past 110,000 years are represented in ice far
enough above bedrock to rule out such disturbances. The perfect agreement
of the records of the GRIP and the GISP-2 ice cores down to this depth
provides further evidence for the climatic character indicated by the records.

Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings.
A temperature increase of 5°C can occur in a few decades.

http://pratclif.com/climatechange/grip-final-report.htm

Yes, I know about the Younger Dryas and D-O events as well. They are believed to be due to sudden fresh water surges of melt water from glacial lakes that cause a sudden shift in ocean currents, i.e., the north Atlantic.