Adaptation, Global Warming and Evolution?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The current GW is the only one caused by humans. All the rest are due to natural forcings. As for modern humans, they evolved during the Pleistocene ice age. Burrrrrrrrrrr!

Are you not willing to consider that it's a bit of both? I'm no climatologist but how can you be so sure that our current problem with Global Warming is down to us? If so, then what would happen if the scales are tipped further if 'Mother Earth' unleashes her fury? I know I'm probably 'rattling too many bones' now but how do you arrive at such a direct point?

Edit: Looking at your comment again. That would be the late Pleistocence ice age?
'....The Paleolithic Period coincides almost exactly with the Pleistocene epoch of geologic time, which lasted from 2.6 million years ago to about 12,000 years ago.[8] This epoch experienced important geographic and climatic changes that affected human societies.'*

~~~
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic
[8] - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/pleistocene.php
'....Today, there is concern about future climate change (e.g., global warming) and how it will affect us. Paleontologists who work on Pleistocene fossils are providing a growing amount of data on the effect of climate change on the Earth's biota, making it possible to understand the effects of future climate change.'

 

[RickG]

Are you not willing to consider that it's a bit of both? I'm no climatologist but how can you be so sure that our current problem with Global Warming is down to us? If so, then what would happen if the scales are tipped further if 'Mother Earth' unleashes her fury? I know I'm probably 'rattling too many bones' now but how do you arrive at such a direct point?

Oh definitely, however, 70% or more is definitely quantifiable as anthropogenic. How do we know? First, the increased CO2 is measurable and correlates substantially with the consumption of fossil fuels. Second, you would want to know how do we know that the additional CO2 is actually human produced and not natural. CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels is significantly different from that in the natural carbon cycle. Or more specifically the ratio of 12C to 13C isotopes. The 12C/13C ratio in fossil fuels is lower than that of the atmospheric 12C/13C ratio. Thus the change seen in those ratios are seen to change throughout the industrial revolution continuously increasing. Here's a good article on it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Oh definitely, however, 70% or more is definitely quantifiable as anthropogenic. How do we know? First, the increased CO2 is measurable and correlates substantially with the consumption of fossil fuels. Second, you would want to know how do we know that the additional CO2 is actually human produced and not natural. CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels is significantly different from that in the natural carbon cycle. Or more specifically the ratio of 12C to 13C isotopes. The 12C/13C ratio in fossil fuels is lower than that of the atmospheric 12C/13C ratio. Thus the change seen in those ratios are seen to change throughout the industrial revolution continuously increasing. Here's a good article on it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Thank you. I'm glad the scientists who put this article* together thought my question was reasonable. (I automatically feel a lot better)

I've always been conscious of this problem but never really got into the Chemistry of it and it causes me to ache in ways that have me wishing I'd been more emphatic in my defense.

The first four stanzas were not too difficult to read, though there certainly were enough terms that I needed to get a proper understanding of:

1. Anthropogenic : of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants
2. Fossil Fuels : Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons, primarily coal, fuel oil or natural gas, formed from the remains of dead plants and animals.
3. Isotope : For example, carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14 are three isotopes of the element carbon with mass numbers 12, 13 and 14 respectively. (thought the article does explain this)
4. Industrial Revolution : http://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution ( Who'd thought it goes back to fabric? )
5. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) : https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-emissions-estimates & http://www.newscientist.com/article...inas-passion-for-renewables.html#.VYVAY1KvY_h
6. Terrestrial Biosphere : http://www.eco-question.com/what-is-terrestrial-biosphere-2

It's weird how I've always been conscious of the damage we've done through cutting down trees (that was always so much in the news) -- but the stuff that really cuts to the pocket of World Economy -- GAS & OIL** is the true servant of the Devil! Perhaps I'm getting too emotional but it does seem that we are so controlled by our lusts that we no longer have a way to go back that doesn't involve some sort of radical reverse in the way we live.
Perhaps it is too late and we're going to burn this planet up -- ???

~~~
* http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
** http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/clean-vehicles/car-emissions-and-global-warming#.VYVCiVKvY_g

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Oh definitely, however, 70% or more is definitely quantifiable as anthropogenic. How do we know? First, the increased CO2 is measurable and correlates substantially with the consumption of fossil fuels. Second, you would want to know how do we know that the additional CO2 is actually human produced and not natural. CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels is significantly different from that in the natural carbon cycle. Or more specifically the ratio of 12C to 13C isotopes. The 12C/13C ratio in fossil fuels is lower than that of the atmospheric 12C/13C ratio. Thus the change seen in those ratios are seen to change throughout the industrial revolution continuously increasing. Here's a good article on it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Hi RickG,
It's been a few months since I posted my reply and no-one has challenged this post of yours, or my reply.
Seeing as it's all quiet, allow me to stir the pot a little with this report from NASA which I first saw on F.B. Viva Da Vinci!!!


'A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice. ....'*

----

*Oct. 30, 2015
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

[RickG]

Hi RickG,
It's been a few months since I posted my reply and no-one has challenged this post of yours, or my reply.
Seeing as it's all quiet, allow me to stir the pot a little with this report from NASA which I first saw on F.B. Viva Da Vinci!!!


'A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice. ....'*

----

*Oct. 30, 2015
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Hi Lewis, good to see you again. I think there are several things that are important to understand in this news release before coming to the conclusion that the title of the article suggests and I'll list them.

1. The news release is just two days old, so this is new news and not something that has been known for some time, or as some who are only interested in the information that appears to support their position while ignoring everything that doesn't would claim, swept under the rug.
2. Before getting half-way through the article I begin to wonder what their critique was in determining total ice volume from snow depth to actual ice. And they do touch on that somewhat deeper into the article. Their ice volume is calculated from satellite altimeters. Snow accumulation and ice thickness are far from the same. I'm sure they have some formula that accounts for that, so I can't question their data and methods without seeing them in detail, but I do think my concern is valid. In fact, they do mention other work with that same concern.
   
3. Antarctica is unique and quite different from what we see in the northern hemisphere. There are areas that are known to be gaining ice and others losing ice. One of the biggest problems is it size, its not like the Arctic, it is a huge continent. Not only that, one must keep in mind that the average elevation 8,200 ft. Average mind you, which means quite a bit of Antarctica is well above that average.
4. The bottom line is, even if Antarctica does gain ice volume, the earth is warming and global sea level is still rising around 3 mm/yr.
5. It is an interesting study and we have to keep in mind that it is only one. We'll have to see what future observations and research reveal. Let's both keep an open mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hi Lewis, good to see you again. I think there are several things that are important to understand in this news release before coming to the conclusion that the title of the article suggests and I'll list them.

1. The news release is just two days old, so this is new news and not something that has been known for some time, or as some who are only interested in the information that appears to support their position while ignoring everything that doesn't would claim, swept under the rug.
2. Before getting half-way through the article I begin to wonder what their critique was in determining total ice volume from snow depth to actual ice. And they do touch on that somewhat deeper into the article. Their ice volume is calculated from satellite altimeters. Snow accumulation and ice thickness are far from the same. I'm sure they have some formula that accounts for that, so I can't question their data and methods without seeing them in detail, but I do think my concern is valid. In fact, they do mention other work with that same concern.
   
3. Antarctica is unique and quite different from what we see in the northern hemisphere. There are areas that are known to be gaining ice and others losing ice. One of the biggest problems is it size, its not like the Arctic, it is a huge continent. Not only that, one must keep in mind that the average elevation 8,200 ft. Average mind you, which means quite a bit of Antarctica is well above that average.
4. The bottom line is, even if Antarctica does gain ice volume, the earth is warming and global sea level is still rising around 3 mm/yr.
5. It is an interesting study and we have to keep in mind that it is only one. We'll have to see what future observations and research reveal. Let's both keep an open mind.

If antarctic ice is growing at least it will not be adding ice melt to the mechanisms causing sea level rise if it offsets the loss of ice elsewhere. Instead, thermal expansion will be the primary mechanism which won't be quite as bad.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hi Lewis, good to see you again. ... Let's both keep an open mind.

Yeah, nice to come by for a bit. Absolutely agree!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hi Lewis, good to see you again. I think there are several things that are important to understand in this news release before coming to the conclusion that the title of the article suggests and I'll list them.

1. The news release is just two days old, so this is new news and not something that has been known for some time, or as some who are only interested in the information that appears to support their position while ignoring everything that doesn't would claim, swept under the rug.
2. Before getting half-way through the article I begin to wonder what their critique was in determining total ice volume from snow depth to actual ice. And they do touch on that somewhat deeper into the article. Their ice volume is calculated from satellite altimeters. Snow accumulation and ice thickness are far from the same. I'm sure they have some formula that accounts for that, so I can't question their data and methods without seeing them in detail, but I do think my concern is valid. In fact, they do mention other work with that same concern.
   
3. Antarctica is unique and quite different from what we see in the northern hemisphere. There are areas that are known to be gaining ice and others losing ice. One of the biggest problems is it size, its not like the Arctic, it is a huge continent. Not only that, one must keep in mind that the average elevation 8,200 ft. Average mind you, which means quite a bit of Antarctica is well above that average.
4. The bottom line is, even if Antarctica does gain ice volume, the earth is warming and global sea level is still rising around 3 mm/yr.
5. It is an interesting study and we have to keep in mind that it is only one. We'll have to see what future observations and research reveal. Let's both keep an open mind.

I see that National Geographic responded on the 3 October (here's one of the points they raised in response to the NASA report) :

'....Do prominent climate scientists agree with the primary conclusions?

No. Some leading scientists vocally disagree with the study, which also runs contrary to the prevailing view of experts that Antarctica has been losing ice mass over the past few decades.

“I think there's a serious issue with the study,” says Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado. “It’s unfortunate that it made it through peer review.”

The paper is inconsistent with other studies that show an overall loss of ice there of around 100 billion tons, based on satellite measurements of the gravity of the ice and snow. (Learn more about climate change in the most recent cover story of National Geographic magazine.) ....'*

---
*- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ce-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/

 

[RickG]

I see that National Geographic responded on the 3 October (here's one of the points they raised in response to the NASA report) :

'....Do prominent climate scientists agree with the primary conclusions?

No. Some leading scientists vocally disagree with the study, which also runs contrary to the prevailing view of experts that Antarctica has been losing ice mass over the past few decades.

“I think there's a serious issue with the study,” says Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado. “It’s unfortunate that it made it through peer review.”

The paper is inconsistent with other studies that show an overall loss of ice there of around 100 billion tons, based on satellite measurements of the gravity of the ice and snow. (Learn more about climate change in the most recent cover story of National Geographic magazine.) ....'*

---
*- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ce-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/

There's a very important aspect that must be understood about the paper. Their data only goes up to 2008. That's seven years ago, and subsequent studies contradict the paper as well. Not only that, some of the authors of that paper are also contributing authors in other research showing overall loss, not gain.

 

[Frenzy]

What is the outcome if GW is true and America does nothing? for us perhaps very little but for our children, grand children and great grand children it could be devastating, can we stop GW if it is true? perhaps not but what have we got to lose by trying to stop it? money.
Do most American Christians only think of themselves? yes I think they do.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What is the outcome if GW is true and America does nothing?

If? A poem by Rudyard Kipling.

'....if GW is true....' ???? *

I believe there are some questions which need to be asked, questions like:

What if we do nothing?**

What are we to do?***

---
*- http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
**- http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html
***- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-can-we-do-about-global-warming-2/

 

[Loudmouth]

If? A poem by Rudyard Kipling.

'....if GW is true....' ???? *

I believe there are some questions which need to be asked, questions like:

What if we do nothing?**

What are we to do?***

I think it is worth pointing to changes that have happened when climate changed in the past. The Sahara was once a lush savanna. Land that was once above water is now below water. Those would be two of the most immediate impacts: loss of highly populated cities currently sitting at sea level and loss of fertile crop lands. For the US, losing the fertile plains in the middle of the country would be a huge blow.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I think it is worth pointing to changes that have happened when climate changed in the past. The Sahara was once a lush savanna. Land that was once above water is now below water. Those would be two of the most immediate impacts: loss of highly populated cities currently sitting at sea level and loss of fertile crop lands. For the US, losing the fertile plains in the middle of the country would be a huge blow.

Yes, a few months ago, I was discussing this with a band mate down at Blackness Castle.*
To think that people who've lived near to the coastline (opposite side) might have to up and move to higher ground in the future, is certainly something to think about.
Well, I guess it's not going to happen any time soon -- right?

*BLACKNESS CASTLE - http://www.visitscotland.com/info/see-do/blackness-castle-p248561

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If? A poem by Rudyard Kipling.

'....if GW is true....' ???? *

I believe there are some questions which need to be asked, questions like:

What if we do nothing?**

What are we to do?***

---
*- http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
**- http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html
***- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-can-we-do-about-global-warming-2/

So the question remains. It's not whether or not it's true but WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO STOP IT?