"Years of Living Dangerously" Topic

YouTube link

Showtime is starting a brilliant new documentary series focusing on climate change and it's effects. For those who don't have Showtime or you missed the first episode, they've made the first episode available on Youtube for free. I highly recommend it.

I saw some reviews, it looks excllent. I didn't know they made the first ep available on YouTube, thanks for the heads-up.

I do not watch religious programming on Youtube or TV.
"Climate change" is every bit as much a religion as anything else. It is dogmatic, its adherents want to imprison deniers and refuses to even admit the possibility of error.

Before you shriek at the accusations of "religion", ask yourself how you want to deal with heretics.
Ask yourself how tolerant you are of those with opposing views.
Then get back to me.

It is dogmatic, its adherents want to imprison deniers and refuses to even admit the possibility of error.

Wrong on all three counts, John, but, hey, knock yourself out.

It's on Showtime. It must be true.

link
Heretics! Burn them!

So much for a nuanced reading of the source material…

My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one's unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public's ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.

Also, nowhere in the article does Dr. Torcello advocate for jailing or rounding up dissenting scientist.

From his webpage:

Recently I wrote a short article published in The Conversation UK, which has been the subject of much attention and misrepresentation. The current form of misrepresentation my work is receiving will be familiar to many who write and research on the topic of climate change. To be clear: I do not believe that anyone who doubts the scientific consensus that exists on climate change should be put in prison. I do not believe that scientists who challenge prevailing views in the course of their scientific research should be put in prison. I do not believe that people who disagree with me should be put in prison. Such views are ridiculous and abhorrent. I value and welcome informed discussion and disagreement. I encourage you to carefully read my real article (
here's the link ), which addresses organized efforts to cloud public perception of science on issues that are relevant to public safety. You may disagree with me that such efforts exist and you are free to do so. You may disagree with me that if such efforts exist they are worthy of any scrutiny, and you are free to do so. I welcome disagreement. Again, I wish to make it clear that my views have been grossly misrepresented in various online outlets. It should also be clear that my views are my own and I do not presume to speak for anyone other than myself.

link

That being said, unlike the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence or lack thereof, climate change exists.

I agree with the OFM.

Man-made climate change is a con. The Earth's climate has always changed. Look at the 'mini Ice Age' of the 17th Century – they reacted the same way then, saying "it's all our fault for being so bad!" Look at the climate in Neolithic times, when it was so warm in Britain that lions and other sub-tropical animals lived here. What caused that? Must have been all those 4x4s the cavemen were using 'cause they hadn't invented roads yet….

Be logical for a minute. Next time it is warm weather where you live, have a look in the sky. See that big yellow round thing up there? Hot, isn't it?

I guess I have to dredge out the basics again:

1. The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without it. If it wasn't for the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be that of the moon: High of 116C at the equator in the sun, and -173C in the shade…
   
2. The principle components to the warming effect (AKA. Greenhouse Gases) are CO2, CH4 and H2O.
   
3. The ability of the above gases are empirically proven to contribute to the greenhouse effect in the laboratory, in a manner that is consistent with the predictions of particle physics. (See John Tyndall who was the first to measure the infra-red absorption of gases in 1860 when working off of Fourier's [Yes, that guy from Math and Physics] first notions about the greenhouse effect way back in the 1820s)
   
4. The quantity of these gases in the atmosphere has grown sharply since the start of the industrial revolution
   
5. We know that the increase is principally due to human action via isotope ratios. As predicted by particle physics and verified by empirical research, Carbon14 is created by the high energy bombardment of Nitrogen13. However the half-life of Carbon14 is short on a geological timescale and would be non-existent for all practical purposes in fossil fuels, and thus if the fossil fuel produced carbon is added to the atmosphere, the C14 share of atmospheric CO2 should decrease over time… and it has.
   
6. The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has shown a trend consistent with an increasing temperature and continues to increase.
   
7. This increase in temperature significantly correlates with greenhouse gas increases on a multi-year scale. Unfortunately the temperature data is too noisy for year to year correlations due to outside effects such as air pollution and ocean currents to name 2.

   The above is agreed by virtually scientist, however it's the next logical conclusion that attracts the ire of so called "skeptics"

8. The observed heating has been caused by increased greenhouse gases.
   

Also, as for the sun argument, the data doesn't support your argument since in the absence of human activity would leave us with a cooling climate due to lower solar radiation over time…

Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS . Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 ( data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

Why is this in the science boards?

If were talking about man made global warming, doesn't it belong in a fantasy board?

YouTube link

Why are you using John Cleese to cover for your lack of strong argument

No it isn't.

Ding, thank you.

Good link Parzival.

Why are you using John Cleese to cover for your lack of strong argument

Oh, I'm sorry. You want an argument. This is Abuse. Try 12A.

Of course the "Temperature vs. Solar Activity" graph shows the falsification of temperature date over time as well.

Graph from 1975:

The bump in the temp around 1940 should be higher on that graph, at least half way to .5 instead of around .1 as indicated.

The IPCC crowd has falsified their data to show what they want to show.

Pictor's can you do us all a favour and cite your graphs so that we can see what assumptions are baked in?

For starters your graph appears to show northern hemisphere temperatures, whereas my graph is explicitly world-wide average temperature anomaly. Also, is your northern hemisphere calculated as 0 degrees to 60 degrees, or equator to the north pole?

Also, if you'll notice that the HadCRUT4 data for land and sea shows that the Northern hemisphere warmed faster than the Southern Hemisphere…

link

Secondly, what's the base time-line for your graph's 0? A different zeroing period would change the relation of the peak of the graph vis-à-vis the zero line.

Also, what's being measured? Is it total surface temperature, or is it only land surface temperature?

The IPCC crowd has falsified their data to show what they want to show.

IF they are ALL falsifying their data, they are rather inept at it since they make their data public and free of charge on the web…

HadCrut4
NASA GISS
Berkeley Earth
NOAA-NCDC

Just to name a few.

However if you are obliquely referring to the climategate "trick" email, you are aware that it was referring to a "trick of the trade" to synchronize two datasets, and the method used was published in great detail in a scientific journal.

Wait. Are you trying to say that my graph is based on incomplete evidence and is showing a trend that might not be indicative of what is going to happen in the future?

Last time I checked Northern hemisphere is not equal to the whole world.

By the way just cite your bloody sources.

Yeah, well a .5 degree change in temperature in 30 years also doesn't mean that we are all going to burn to death in a giant flood either.

In all the sturm und drang, remember that catastrophic climate change doesn't only mean stronger storms or more devastating droughts or "we are all going to burn to death in a giant flood." Even if you completely ignore those effects, the catastrophe can be as slow and simple ("not with a bang, but with a whimper") as what plants do and do not thrive in your area anymore.

I'm sure you've all seen plant hardiness zone maps; here's the 2012 US map from the USDA:

You can see that even small changes in temperature – yes, even half a degree F – are going to move those zones northward (in the northern hemisphere), and that is exactly what's been happening over the last century, and especially the last 30 years. The USDA revised its zone map in '90 and again in '12, each time moving the zones northward. That northward movement is problematic for many reasons.

Cool-zone plants no longer grow as well, or at all, as their habitat warms. But it's not just that you'll have to plant different flowers in your garden, it also impacts native plants and trees and, worst of all, agricultural crops.

Warm-zone plants, including invasive plants, take over cool-zone habitat. For example, warm-zone grasses push out native cool-zone wildflowers. Kudzu is now entrenched in Pennsylvania.

Warm-zone plant pests and plant diseases move northward, too, attacking cool-zone plants that are unable to combat the threats. Crop diseases that are endemic to the tropics are moving poleward. Red fire ants, Asian tiger mosquitoes, Colorado potato beetles, mountain pine beetles, are just a few of the insect species that are expanding northward.

There's more, if you care to Google it.

That would just mean that there is more biodiversity, something environmentalists have been complaining us losing for years. In fact the movement of plants northward would mean that areas which are now not able to be used for agriculture might be able to be used for agriculture.

If a prediction that the polar caps would be ice free in 6 years that I heard recently comes true we could make all of Greenland and Antarctica into giant wheat farms.

So even if this religious belief is born out, it is possible that, by your argument, humanity could benefit from it.

Taking your post more seriously than I suspect you intended, Pictors: Melted permafrost and tundra isn't suitable for modern agricultural crops and methods, even setting aside the lack of necessary infrastructure (highways, rail lines, etc.).

link

Crop responses in a changing climate reflect the interplay among three factors: rising temperatures, changing water resources, and increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. Warming generally causes plants that are below their optimum temperature to grow faster, with obvious benefits. For some plants, such as cereal crops, however, faster growth means there is less time for the grain itself to grow and mature, reducing yields.2 For some annual crops, this can be compensated for by adjusting the planting date to avoid late season heat stress.4

The grain-filling period (the time when the seed grows and matures) of wheat and other small grains shortens dramatically with rising temperatures. Analysis of crop responses suggests that even moderate increases in temperature will decrease yields of corn, wheat, sorghum, bean, rice, cotton, and peanut crops

For each plant variety, there is an optimal temperature for vegetative growth, with growth dropping off as temperatures increase or decrease. Similarly, there is a range of temperatures at which a plant will produce seed. Outside of this range, the plant will not reproduce. As the graphs show, corn will fail to reproduce at temperatures above 95°F and soybean above 102°F. Image Reference: ARS USDA

Higher carbon dioxide levels generally cause plants to grow larger. For some crops, this is not necessarily a benefit because they are often less nutritious, with reduced nitrogen and protein content. Carbon dioxide also makes some plants more water-use efficient, meaning they produce more plant material, such as grain, on less water.2 This is a benefit in water-limited areas and in seasons with less than normal rainfall amounts.

Fruits that require long winter chilling periods will experience declines. Many varieties of fruits (such as popular varieties of apples and berries) require between 400 and 1,800 cumulative hours below 45°F each winter to produce abundant yields the following summer and fall. By late this century, under higher emissions scenarios,6 winter temperatures in many important fruit-producing regions such as the Northeast will be too consistently warm to meet these requirements. Cranberries have a particularly high chilling requirement, and there are no known low-chill varieties. Massachusetts and New Jersey supply nearly half the nation's cranberry crop. By the middle of this century, under higher emissions scenarios,6 it is unlikely that these areas will support cranberry production due to a lack of the winter chilling they need. 7,8 Such impacts will vary by region. For example, though there will still be risks of early-season frosts and damaging winter thaws, warming is expected to improve the climate for fruit production in the Great Lakes region.4

A seemingly paradoxical impact of warming is that it appears to be increasing the risk of plant frost damage. Mild winters and warm, early springs, which are beginning to occur more frequently as climate warms, induce premature plant development and blooming, resulting in exposure of vulnerable young plants and plant tissues to subsequent late-season frosts. For example, the 2007 spring freeze in the eastern United States caused widespread devastation of crops and natural vegetation because the frost occurred during the flowering period of many trees and during early grain development on wheat plants.9 Another example is occurring in the Rocky Mountains where in addition to the process described above, reduced snow cover leaves young plants unprotected from spring frosts, with some plant species already beginning to suffer as a result10 (see Ecosystems sector).

Now you guys just seem to be reaching. Pictors hoist you by your own petard. Your link is going to the place that states all the in the first place.

Basically you are saying "Don't believe me, then ask me!"

There is the one for Canada. Presumably it will just shift the growing of different things north.

Isn't Canada bigger than the United States?

Try plowing this topography:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Canadian_Shield_Ontario.jpg

Also, considering that I grew-up in the light blue zone, I know first hand that the soil up there is quite poor since it's acidic and lacking in biological material, but full of aggregate and boulders and as well as plenty of exposed bedrock due to erosion during the last glaciation.

John,

You forgot to mention the purchase of Indulgences (or 'Carbon Credits', as they're now known).

There is the one for Canada. Presumably it will just shift the growing of different things north.

You presume wrong, my friend. Most plants can be successfully transplanted longitudinally, given a similar climate and environment. Most plants do not translate across different latitudes so successfully.

That would just mean that there is more biodiversity….

The examples given are invasive plants and animals which are able to exploit different climates and environments. Their presence does NOT contribute to biodiversity, in fact they achieve the very opposite. I suggest you read up on the ecological effects of some of these species. You may wish to start with the Zebra mussel and the Purple Loosestrife plant as their is plenty of literature about them.

Be logical for a minute. Next time it is warm weather where you live, have a look in the sky. See that big yellow round thing up there? Hot, isn't it?

Ok, I will:

Logical people know not to conflate climate with weather.
Logical people know that climate change is not solely dependent on the "big, yellow, round thing" in the sky.
Logical people are very well aware that climate changed in the past, thank you. Logical people are concerned with the current rate of change, which research shows to be unprecedented.

Based on this thread, I should invest in Alcan. I foresee a lot of tin foil hats being made.

Religion – belief in unproven claims that can't be tested.

Go on John – make your self a Nobel prize winner. Because THIS IS SCIENCE.

Piktor
Please source your graphs and data. The last graph of yours I managed to plough back through to the original data started as part of a study on the temperature interactions between the Gulf Stream and land temperatures in the past using 1953 as the date for the zero working back. It was then used legitimately by a skeptic to show disconnect to ice core data then taken from that secondary work by a denier to claim it showed higher temperatures in the past to present temperatures in this century then by you with no reference back.

This one plough back makes me distrust you charts without sources. It took quite a bit of time to find all the bits. I don't have the resources to check the latest of your graphs (I'm on a train half way between London and York).

x42

Pretty.

And warm.

No ice ages are predicted in the foreseeable future. That is a good thing….

Kudzu! Be careful what you wish for . . .

OFM – its not a religeon.

Change the record, just get over the fact its true. Even the Carbon industry hired scientists say GW is true.

Ask yourself how tolerant you are of those with opposing views.

I'm not tolerant of idiocy. That isn't religion, that is getting tired of listening to idiocy. If someone continually told you that trees called wind you'd get tired of them too.

@John: Climate change adherents aren't going to burn heretics--that would release CO2.

Happy Earth Day, everyone!