Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

A learned and well-reasoned approach to "climatism".

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUYpa5UHL2I

[mike777]

Wind energy facilities have killed at least 67 golden and bald eagles in the last five years, but the figure could be much higher, according to a new scientific study by government biologists.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/study-wind-farms-killed-67-eagles-5-years-160226373.html

[onoway]

Wind energy facilities have killed at least 67 golden and bald eagles in the last five years, but the figure could be much higher, according to a new scientific study by government biologists.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/study-wind-farms-killed-67-eagles-5-years-160226373.html

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/predation.pdf although that doesn't mean that less lethal wind generators shouldn't be designed. The VAWT types seem to be much less likely to assassinate birds.

[mike777]

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/predation.pdf although that doesn't mean that less lethal wind generators shouldn't be designed. The VAWT types seem to be much less likely to assassinate birds.

 

 

well assissinate is a pretty loaded word. :)

[Daniel1960]

well assissinate is a pretty loaded word. :)

 

While cats have taken a high toll on many bird populations, the leading cause of death is still collisions with glass windows.

 

http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf

 

Maybe, if we put a picture of a cat in the window, birds will steer away.

[Al_U_Card]

Rud Istvan's very cogent explanation of why climate models are pretty much useless for anything but rent-seeking and fear-mongering.

 

In-line comment

 

The HadCM3 result is inherent, explicable, and applies to virtually all GCMs. Nic (Lewis) identified it precisely, a negative lapse rate feedback ( humidity as a function of altitude). AR4 WG1 black box 8.1 is clear about constant UTrH. That means there is no lapse rate feedback. Yet multiple observation methods have shown UTrH declined with warming. That is an observed negative lapse rate feedback. Upshot is positive water vapor feedback is overstated and the model runs too hot. So it gets artificially cooled to match past history by overstating observed aerosols. When that proved observationally incorrect, the Trenberth hidden heat nonsense emerged to paper over this fundamental GCM flaw.

 

Lindzen hypothesized the physical mechanism back in 2001 as an 'adaptive iris'. More warmth, more surface humidity, more tropical convection (thunderstorms). These produce more precipitation, which removes humidity that would otherwise reach the UT. Also release more latent heat to radiate away as OLR. A classic negative feedback mechanism damping any warming effect, including (shown in the 1990s) La Nina. Explains the lack of an actual equatorial troposphere hotspot that the CMIP3 archive all model. Problem is inherent and insoluble, since the best supercomputers do not enable sufficiently small grid scales to model these convection cells. The impossibility of adequately reflecting this climate fundamental is probably not something MET modelers would want to admit, lest they risk defunding. Yet AR5 SOD itself acknowledged the problem in WG1 at 7.2.1.2 with respect to clouds generally ( and cloud feedback generally), for which Lindzens adaptive iris is a special and doubly important case because it also produces the negative lapse rate feedback.

 

[Al_U_Card]

D'oh!

 

They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

 

The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

 

One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.

It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’.

 

For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.

Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.

[Al_U_Card]

Less confusing and worth a 1000 words (lower troposphere temperature anomaly values as measured by satellite).

 

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

 

(Recall that according to the (model) "projections" the poles will exhibit accelerated warming due to [CO2] increases.)

 

Well, the Arctic must be REALLY hotting up then, surely?

 

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_northern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

 

If the cooling "trend" at the end of that curve continues....we may all need to invest in snow shovels. :blink:

[onoway]

Deforestation and bare soil leads to more extreme temperatures both low and high. Anyone can test that in their own garden, don't need to go into a lab. Desertification leads to bare soil, as does the massive deforestation taking place around the world. It isn't at all surprising that there have been unusual floods this year in the west. We are removing the ability of the earth to moderate weather. and to make water useful rather than just either running off or evaporating. The flooding in Calgary at least, is almost certainly linked to the logging of the watershed upstream.

 

It won't be at all surprising if we soon start to see more droughts as well as more floods.

[blackshoe]

Clearly Klaatu was right in his initial assessment: we must destroy Mankind in order to save the planet.

[Al_U_Card]

At times, it seems that Man's hubris is only exceeded by his credulity.

 

Even the limited historical data that we have shows that current floods and droughts (and other extreme weather events) are well within the natural variation of the climate system. That we affect local environments is clear and UHI is a classic example. That we are able to render the environment unsuitable for our own purposes (radiation, pollution etc.) plays to our other trait of short-sightedness. But at least those effects are measurable and can be defined and analyzed.

 

As for [CO2] and its power to overwhelm the planetary climate system, other forces are in play and they, too, come directly from our foibles. The science and data clearly show it not to be an issue of any import.

[onoway]

Clearly Klaatu was right in his initial assessment: we must destroy Mankind in order to save the planet.

 

When most of your topsoil has washed out into the Gulf of Mexico and most of what's left is so salted from artificial fertilizers that it can no longer grow anything, and that combines with drought because all the rain that falls cannot recharge the aquifers because it runs off and/or evaporates too quickly it's going to be a bit difficult to provide the food and water required.

 

That doesn't even address the certainty (it's already occurred) of pests and diseases becoming immune to ever more virulent poisons..which humans may well not adapt so quickly to handle..and causing havoc in crops with the same genetic makeup. It's basically the Irish potato famine scenario as genetic diversity in food crops is being ever more restricted and constrained.

 

This isn't because we have too many people but because we have a stupidly destructive way of managing food production and water use.

[mike777]

This isn't because we have too many people but because we have a stupidly destructive way of managing food production and water use.

I understand this is your bias and your main theme in all of your posts.

 

I just think stupidly destructive is a step too far but ok.

 

I encourage you to post improvements, as you try......thank you.

 

The world is better off with critics ......thank you.

[Daniel1960]

That doesn't even address the certainty (it's already occurred) of pests and diseases becoming immune to ever more virulent poisons..which humans may well not adapt so quickly to handle..and causing havoc in crops with the same genetic makeup. It's basically the Irish potato famine scenario as genetic diversity in food crops is being ever more restricted and constrained.

The disease/immunity response has been in ploy since the beginning of time. Disease attacks (and kills) the most vulnerable. Those with the greatest immunity survive, and pass on their immunity to following generations. Diseases must mutate, in order to survive. Nature selects those most capable of survival, and so on.

 

Similar genetic makeup in any species is a recipe for disaster. In-breeding among plants and animals can have devasting effects. This has always occurred, and is no mroe or less common today than in past eras.

[Daniel1960]

On a separate issue, Gavin and company are busy explaining away the latests IPCC graph showing observations and models diverging. Gavin stated, "That models and observations do not match in all respects is normal and expected." True to form, he is believing his models over the recent data, "we don't calibrate the emergent properties of the GCMs to the emergent properties derived from observations." He is standing behind his climate sensitivity value of 3C/ doubling, which he claims is based on paleo measurements, even though many are much lower (1.9 - 2.3).

[Al_U_Card]

It's basically the Irish potato famine scenario as genetic diversity in food crops is being ever more restricted and constrained.

 

This isn't because we have too many people but because we have a stupidly destructive way of managing food production and water use.

 

as well as cooler temperatures during that period...

 

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/clip_image0028.jpg?w=735&h=446

 

One of the cooler periods, famines often occur during the years when growing seasons are short and the resulting agricultural productivity is low.

[onoway]

The disease/immunity response has been in ploy since the beginning of time. Disease attacks (and kills) the most vulnerable. Those with the greatest immunity survive, and pass on their immunity to following generations. Diseases must mutate, in order to survive. Nature selects those most capable of survival, and so on.

 

Similar genetic makeup in any species is a recipe for disaster. In-breeding among plants and animals can have devasting effects. This has always occurred, and is no mroe or less common today than in past eras.

Sorry, you are wrong. There are already governments actively restricting the sale and use of seed which is not "registered" and in some countries it is now illegal to sell, trade or even give away seeds not on that list. Farmers who try to raise crops from canola or corn or soybeans which are not genetically modified had better have their own markets as Monsanto and their cohorts now own the companies which buy these commodities and they can - and usually do - simply "not have a market" for such that don't come from their seed.

 

Farmers in Canada tried to prevent the admission of GMO flax for this very reason, but the government denied them, so now the farmers are pretty much forced to grow GMO flax. Farmers are not allowed to sell even grass seed as "common" seed anymore, it has to be of a registered variety or they are subject to prosecution. There is even a notice to that effect in the advertisement section of the major farming newspaper.

 

Farmers in Turkey I am told, can not only have their crops destroyed (at their cost) if they are growing an unregistered crop, but also even if that crop is registered but in the wrong field. I bought some seeds from Britain a few years back and was charged a penny to join a "club" as that was the only way they had found to circumvent the rules about selling heritage vegetable seed which wasn't on the "list". Thatchers in Britain have now to import thatching straw from Spain as they are no longer allowed to raise their own straw for thatching, those (traditional) varieties are no longer "approved" for Britain.

 

Inbreeding and wild crossing has indeed always occurred.Of course, in nature the crossing is always between "relatives" - plants or animals with sufficient genetic similarities for offspring to survive Some are not close enough for those to be able to raise the next generation though, such as a cross between a horse and a donkey..the offspring (mules)are almost invariably sterile.

 

You will not, however, ever naturally find (as an example), a potato with jellyfish genes, which not only now exists, but can reproduce itself. You also won't find plants in nature (for very long, at least) which are genetically coded to be unable to reproduce and we also not only have those, we are forcing farmers to raise them so they cannot save seed and must buy it every year.

 

The main point though, is that the results of natural crossings either thrived or not according to how well they coped with their environment. This is no longer the case. Plants are genetically spliced and then supported with totally artificial inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides...some crops get hit with up to 9 different sprays in a season. What happens when those things become too expensive or even unavailable, or, as is happening, FAIL? In the past diversity has been a buffer against such things as the Irish potato famine, which occurred because almost everyone in Ireland was growing the same variety of potato. When it got hit with an unexpected blight, it was disaster.

 

Farmers in South Africa not long ago lost thousands of acres of GMO corn - the general estimates were over 30 % of the total crop that year -because (according to Monsanto) they hadn't been given instructions for sufficient fertilizer to be applied. The corn simply didn't form ears, so there was nothing to harvest.

 

Some years ago, a similar loss happened in the US when a new blight showed up that was immune to the GMO fungicides. Corn borers have developed an immunity to the poisons which used to kill them so now more virulent ones are being used. There's absolutely no reason to think they will not also develop immunity to those as well, we've been that route with overuse of antibiotics and have managed to develop such things as flesh eating disease as a result.

 

Virtually all the commercially grown corn soybeans and canola, at the very least, and most of the other major food crops as well, are now GMO varieties which focus on the same traits and rely totally on an artificially supported environment.

 

There is also growing evidence that the various sprays necessarily used for these crops are implicated in the " bee colony collapse disorder" and of course if we lose the bees for pollinating things then that is also a major disaster, they are an essential link in the production of most of the food we eat.

 

In the US, the government has given Monsanto at least temporary immunity from lawsuits.

 

We are deliberately setting up a situation where we are not only limiting diversity but inviting disaster.

I think stupidity is an understatement.

[Daniel1960]

as well as cooler temperatures during that period...

 

One of the cooler periods, famines often occur during the years when growing seasons are short and the resulting agricultural productivity is low.

 

While famines typically occur during cooler periods, where rainfall is light, the great Irish potato famine was due to a disease. While the cooler temperatures that occurred late that summer affected all crops throughtout Europe, the entire potato crop was virtually destroyed, and along with it, over one million Irish. Many like to blame the Irish for their over-reliance on one crop, and one variety of that crop. However, British politics played a large role in the Irish adopting a single crop, especially the English Corn Act. Ireland is not alone; several other countries have adopted single-crop agriculture, and would be susesptible to a similar catastrophe.

[Al_U_Card]

The upshot of this line of reasoning being that nature provides variability and a way through most difficulties. Man and especially his governments, OTOH, tend to favour the special interests of the wealthy and powerful.

 

Plus ça change...

[Daniel1960]

 

Onoway, you state initially that I am wrong, and then everything you say seems to agree with my statement about genetic diversity. Whether natural or artificial is irrelevant; the effect will be the same.

[Al_U_Card]

On a separate issue, Gavin and company are busy explaining away the latests IPCC graph showing observations and models diverging. Gavin stated, "That models and observations do not match in all respects is normal and expected." True to form, he is believing his models over the recent data, "we don't calibrate the emergent properties of the GCMs to the emergent properties derived from observations." He is standing behind his climate sensitivity value of 3C/ doubling, which he claims is based on paleo measurements, even though many are much lower (1.9 - 2.3).

 

Oh those Krazy Klimatologists! Just part of the tactics to justify continuing to waste taxpayer's dollars on pointless "experimentation" that never seems to agree with reality.

Bob Carter has a slew of analyses showing that the models have almost no "skill" in their hindcasts....and we are asked to make policy decisions based on their "projections"???

[onoway]

 

Onoway, you state initially that I am wrong, and then everything you say seems to agree with my statement about genetic diversity. Whether natural or artificial is irrelevant; the effect will be the same.

I was referring to your comment that there is basically the same degree of diversity and things are chugging along much as always. They aren't.

 

The first part of your post noted that nature does a good job of sorting out which new varieties of whatever thrives and multiplies. That's simply not the case with most GMO plants, as I pointed out, they are heavilly guarded by artificial environments to prevent them from having to deal with any of nature's little challenges.

 

It isn't even only with plants; it also applies to domestic animals, though GMO doesn't apply so much there. The exception I've heard of so far is that scientists are trying to create a cow that doesn't fart. Climate change and all. It seems that nobody noticed that cows fed on grass rather than corn or large amounts of grain, don't in the first place. But just as there are organizations dedicated to preserving heritage seeds in the cause of diversity, so are there groups trying to save threatened varieties of domestic animals...most of which used to be common.

 

I didn't even note that scientists say we are losing species faster than ever before, I've heard as many as several species a day going extinct. I have little knowledge of that aside from such things as the passenger pigeon, which is hardly a recent event. Extinctions before have mostly been through ignorance and/or accident, small or cosmic.

 

I was referring to the direct and deliberately active efforts to restrict diversity in an effort to make money by patenting food plants and forcing farmers to grow only those varieties.

[Daniel1960]

Onoaway,

 

As I stated previosuly, Nature selects those most capable of survival, and so on. We can protect ourselves and other species as much as possible to ward off infection. This could lead to much greater pandemics, as large quantities of species with similar genetic makeup allows virus to spread rapidly. I think we agree on that part. However, our disagreement rests on whether this is happening with a greater frequency today.

 

I have heard a similar statement about losing species, and it refers to the estimates concerning rainforest destruction. Since two-thirds of all species reside in the rainforest, the cutting down of the trees, must lead to numerous extinctions. An analysis is presented here:

 

http://www.rainforestconservation.org/rainforest-primer/2-biodiversity/g-recent-losses-in-biodiversity/3-estimation-of-species-extinctions

[onoway]

Well, the process we are following now is more appropriate to a hostile environment like the moon than it is to a natural environment which managed to provide well for people for however many thousands of years until we decided we could make things work better, things are really quite simple, no need to consider complexity at all and nature was our enemy.

 

As I said, I know very little about loss of diversity outside of my area of concern; there are too many things to be concerned about and only so much energy. Like most other people I've heard about "THE TREE" that someone supposed would be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the rainforest being able to cope. I DO know that a number of people who have turned their back on the scientifically recommended and traditional way of doing things have restored diversity when they restored habitat..Willie Smits, Allan Savory, Sepp Holtzer, Bill Mollison are some examples, all working in entirely different climates initially, found exactly the same result. Willie Smits has a terrific TED Talk and his project has been hugely successful in all regards as far as I can tell.

 

I am a bit cynical about large organizations since I learned that an organization supposedly dedicated to "saving the earth" was using RoundUp on plants they imagined were non natives. I think that most of them walk a fine line between actually doing anything productive and not annoying too much the "powers that be". Greenpeace, whatever you or I might think of their various activities, has been less concerned about that than they have in following their convictions.

 

But surely you can see that thousands upon thousands of acres of monocrop held in production by chemicals, some of which sterilize the soil for anything else to grow, sometimes up to 10 YEARS, as just one example, is going to affect diversity. The AIM and GOAL of monocropping is to restrict diversity. Now we are monocropping everything from almond trees to onions.

 

Fields used to be relatively small and bordered by hedgerows which sheltered and provided for any number of life forms from microbes to birds and animals. Now fields can literally be up to a thousand acres of one field, stripped of any trees and running as close to the road as possible. No habitat for anything else including in the soil which holds up the crop plant. The habitat loss is also considered to be partly responsible for colony collapse disorder AND the disappearance of native bee species as well as badly stressing bat populations, and bats are also far far more useful to humans than people give them credit for.

 

Even the lawns that people care for so assiduously are an enemy to diversity as anyone who has been vigorously applying chemicals to rid their lawn of clover and dandelions demonstrates. It always bemuses me to see people spending hours in a veggie garden tenderly looking after their plants, when the dandelions they just poisoned or dug up are vastly more nutritious than almost anything else they grow, as is the pigweed they pull up as soon as they see it, etc. I don't have the link handy but someone who studied food said that centuries ago, people ate something like 1900 different plants. The average now is way less than half of that. I imagine most people would have difficulty naming even 300 edible plants, less than 1/6 of what used to be common in diets. I know I couldn't get anywhere close to 1900 without resorting to outside sources, and even then would be a challenge. Try it! Then tell me we haven't lost diversity. And that's just the food we eat!

 

Monocropping is the antithesis of diversity and its mortal enemy. I'm bewildered that you don't see that as having any particular effect on diversity at all.

[PassedOut]

Monocropping is the antithesis of diversity and its mortal enemy.

Intuitively it seems to me you are right about that. I noticed that Monsanto is one of the sponsors of the Doomsday Seed Vault. What do you suppose they are up to with that?