Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:41 pm
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
Heracleum Persicum wrote:.
95-Degree Days
How Extreme Heat Could Spread Across the World
This scary, folks .. have a look
.
Always the ever receding future tense, never the present.Heracleum Persicum wrote:.
95-Degree Days
How Extreme Heat Could Spread Across the World
This scary, folks .. have a look
.
But I am sure this is pure alarmism. After all, if only 1/3rd of the Great Barrier Reef is left standing a decade from now, that's still a lot of reefs, right? Why worry about that?Perhaps most disturbingly, what Marshall and Vevers have witnessed on Lizard Island is in no way unique. In the upper third of the 2,300km reef it’s estimated that about half the coral is dead.
Surveys have revealed that 93% of the almost 3,000 individual reefs have been touched by bleaching, and almost a quarter – 22% – of coral over the entire Great Barrier Reef has been killed by this bleaching event. On many reefs around Lizard Island and further north, there is utter devastation.
Further south, the bleaching is less severe. Since tourists usually go diving and snorkelling in the middle and southern sections, there are plenty of spectacular corals for them to see there. But they shouldn’t be fooled by that – the reef is in the midst of a major environmental catastrophe.
Many scientists are now saying it is almost too late to save it. Strong and immediate action is required to alleviate water pollution and stop the underlying cause: climate change.
Rude commentMr. Perfect wrote:You should go down there and fix it.
go down there and fix it for him? Maybe....Mr. Perfect wrote:What does he want me to do about it.
Could think of worse places to visit . . .Simple Minded wrote:go down there and fix it for him? Maybe....Mr. Perfect wrote:What does he want me to do about it.
The one factor that humans can control is crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) predation:The world’s coral reefs are being degraded, and the need to reduce local pressures to offset the effects of increasing global pressures is now widely recognized. This study investigates the spatial and temporal dynamics of coral cover, identifies the main drivers of coral mortality, and quantifies the rates of potential recovery of the Great Barrier Reef. Based on the world’s most extensive time series data on reef condition (2,258 surveys of 214 reefs over 1985–2012), we show a major decline in coral cover from 28.0% to 13.8% (0.53% y−1), a loss of 50.7% of initial coral cover. Tropical cyclones, coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), and coral bleaching accounted for 48%, 42%, and 10% of the respective estimated losses, amounting to 3.38% y−1 mortality rate. Importantly, the relatively pristine northern region showed no overall decline.
Sympathy for the defendants, if it comes to pass.Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor who claims the U.S. can run solely on renewables, tells his critics he’s hired an attorney.
Mr. Perfect wrote:The crazy lunatic is back.
Sti_ovEFPdo
At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."noddy wrote:Mr. Perfect wrote:The crazy lunatic is back.
Sti_ovEFPdo
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6322922/rat ... _=tt_ov_rt
its an amazing stat: ~80% of the population voted either 10 or 1, ~95% of the population [8 -> 10] or [1 -> 3] - all true believers or haters
barely a triangulator to be found.
Scientism. It's part of an identity politics based crowd manipulation scheme. The goal is to get people to blindly follow any doctrine presented as science by the designated high priests of scientism.Typhoon wrote:Gore is the secular version of the televangelists that fleece their flock to maintain a materially luxurious lifestyle.
It’s also difficult, but not impossible, to run farm-scale experiments on how CO2 affects plants. Researchers use a technique that essentially turns an entire field into a lab. The current gold standard for this type of research is called a FACE experiment (for “free-air carbon dioxide enrichment”), in which researchers create large open-air structures that blow CO2 onto the plants in a given area. Small sensors keep track of the CO2 levels. When too much CO2 escapes the perimeter, the contraption puffs more into the air to keep the levels stable. Scientists can then compare those plants directly to others growing in normal air nearby.
These experiments and others like them have shown scientists that plants change in important ways when they’re grown at elevated CO2 levels. Within the category of plants known as “C3”―which includes approximately 95 percent of plant species on earth, including ones we eat like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes―elevated CO2 has been shown to drive down important minerals like calcium, potassium, zinc and iron. The data we have, which look at how plants would respond to the kind of CO2 concentrations we may see in our lifetimes, show these important minerals drop by 8 percent, on average. The same conditions have been shown to drive down the protein content of C3 crops, in some cases significantly, with wheat and rice dropping 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively.
Earlier this summer, a group of researchers published the first studies attempting to estimate what these shifts could mean for the global population. Plants are a crucial source of protein for people in the developing world, and by 2050, they estimate, 150 million people could be put at risk of protein deficiency, particularly in countries like India and Bangladesh. Researchers found a loss of zinc, which is particularly essential for maternal and infant health, could put 138 million people at risk. They also estimated that more than 1 billion mothers and 354 million children live in countries where dietary iron is projected to drop significantly, which could exacerbate the already widespread public health problem of anemia.
There aren’t any projections for the United States, where we for the most part enjoy a diverse diet with no shortage of protein, but some researchers look at the growing proportion of sugars in plants and hypothesize that a systemic shift in plants could further contribute to our already alarming rates of obesity and cardiovascular disease.
e journal Nature that looked at key crops grown at several sites in Japan, Australia and the United States that also found rising CO2 led to a drop in protein, iron and zinc. It was the first time the issue had attracted any real media attention.
“The public health implications of global climate change are difficult to predict, and we expect many surprises,” the researchers wrote. “The finding that raising atmospheric CO2 lowers the nutritional value of C3 crops is one such surprise that we can now better predict and prepare for.”
The same year―in fact, on the same day―Loladze, then teaching math at the The Catholic University of Daegu in South Korea, published his own paper, the result of more than 15 years of gathering data on the same subject. It was the largest study in the world on rising CO2 and its impact on plant nutrients. Loladze likes to describe plant science as ““noisy”―research-speak for cluttered with complicating data, through which it can be difficult to detect the signal you’re looking for. His new data set was finally big enough to see the signal through the noise, to detect the “hidden shift,” as he put it. What he found is that his 2002 theory—or, rather, the strong suspicion he had articulated back then—appeared to be borne out. Across nearly 130 varieties of plants and more than 15,000 samples collected from experiments over the past three decades, the overall concentration of minerals like calcium, magnesium, potassium, zinc and iron had dropped by 8 percent on average. The ratio of carbohydrates to minerals was going up. The plants, like the algae, were becoming junk food.
What that means for humans―whose main food intake is plants―is only just starting to be investigated. Researchers who dive into it will have to surmount obstacles like its low profile and slow pace, and a political environment where the word “climate” is enough to derail a funding conversation. It will also require entirely new bridges to be built in the world of science―a problem that Loladze himself wryly acknowledges in his own research. When his paper was finally published in 2014, Loladze listed his grant rejections in the acknowledgements.
Which is what the study's authors propose to do.Typhoon wrote:http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full
(...)
The one factor that humans can control is crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) predation:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/microdoc ... horns.html
Tl;dr: Fertilizer runoff → plankton bloom → more COTS → less coral
However, the kiddie crusaders that now write for the MSM such as The Grauniad would never allow reality to get in the way of a scary MMGW bedtime story.
Thus, reducing COTS populations, by improving water quality and developing alternative control measures, could prevent further coral decline and improve the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef. Such strategies can, however, only be successful if climatic conditions are stabilized, as losses due to bleaching and cyclones will otherwise increase.
Note that global warming, or its lack, realism of the carbon dioxide forcing equation, or lack of realism, isn't dependent on people agreeing or not on a given movie, nor on a given politician being more or less sincere nor more or less in love with his own image.Simple Minded wrote:At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."
I think you would seem similar grouping if the movie theme was "Al Gore, not Jesus Christ, is the son of God."
The authors presented their results as quoted. The part you highlighted is speculative boilerplate that is obligatory in a climate related paper.Alexis wrote:Which is what the study's authors propose to do.Typhoon wrote:http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full
(...)
The one factor that humans can control is crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) predation:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/microdoc ... horns.html
Tl;dr: Fertilizer runoff → plankton bloom → more COTS → less coral
However, the kiddie crusaders that now write for the MSM such as The Grauniad would never allow reality to get in the way of a scary MMGW bedtime story.
However, an important caveat they underlined was:
Thus, reducing COTS populations, by improving water quality and developing alternative control measures, could prevent further coral decline and improve the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef. Such strategies can, however, only be successful if climatic conditions are stabilized, as losses due to bleaching and cyclones will otherwise increase.
The Wikiped page ignores that physical reality that CO2 absorption at the relevant infrared wavelenghts is logarithmic and thus saturates:Alexis wrote:I think you would seem similar grouping if the movie theme was "Al Gore, not Jesus Christ, is the son of God."Simple Minded wrote:At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."
Alexis wrote:Note that global warming, or its lack, realism of the carbon dioxide forcing equation, or lack of realism, isn't dependent on people agreeing or not on a given movie, nor on a given politician being more or less sincere nor more or less in love with his own image.
A claim that has become an article of faith.Alexis wrote:It's actually quite possible either that no global warming takes place, or that human beings are not the cause. In fact, a distinct minority of 4 among 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed papers on climate reject the anthropogenic theory for global warming.
the part of the AGW religion that defies belief is the accuracy claim. Measure the Earth's temperature within 0.1 degree? Really?Alexis wrote:
Note that global warming, or its lack, realism of the carbon dioxide forcing equation, or lack of realism, isn't dependent on people agreeing or not on a given movie, nor on a given politician being more or less sincere nor more or less in love with his own image.Simple Minded wrote:At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."
I think you would seem similar grouping if the movie theme was "Al Gore, not Jesus Christ, is the son of God."
It's actually quite possible either that no global warming takes place, or that human beings are not the cause. In fact, a distinct minority of 4 among 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed papers on climat reject the anthropogenic theory for global warming.
0.1 degrees huh? Is that instantaneous or an average? If average, over what time period starting at what time of day? With or without a breeze? With the same amount of cloud cover on the same day of the year with the Earth the same distance from the Sun? Or something with some or all of these parameters random?Simple Minded wrote:the part of the AGW religion that defies belief is the accuracy claim. Measure the Earth's temperature within 0.1 degree? Really?Alexis wrote:
Note that global warming, or its lack, realism of the carbon dioxide forcing equation, or lack of realism, isn't dependent on people agreeing or not on a given movie, nor on a given politician being more or less sincere nor more or less in love with his own image.Simple Minded wrote:At first blush, that does seem unusual. But without having seen the movie, I would bet that the overriding theme of the movie is "Al Gore is a Climate Scientist of impeccable credentials, who has dedicated his life as a selfless servant of humanity. Thank God people like him are tirelessly working to save the world from the stupid people who live among us."
I think you would seem similar grouping if the movie theme was "Al Gore, not Jesus Christ, is the son of God."
It's actually quite possible either that no global warming takes place, or that human beings are not the cause. In fact, a distinct minority of 4 among 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed papers on climat reject the anthropogenic theory for global warming.
Based on life experience, remaining in the same spot outside for more than 10 minutes, often results in a noticeable temperature change (3 degrees?). The same or greater temperature change can also often be felt by moving 100 feet in the X.Y. or Z direction.
So, to anyone who says they can record the instantaneous temperature of even an a single acre of the Earth with a data point from one thermometer, I say I'll bet you a year's pay, you can't prove it. And give me an identical thermometer, and I'll bet you another year's pay I can disprove your claimed accuracy by taking simultaneously temperature measurements, 9 times out of 10.
If NASA or NOAA claims they are recording dozens of temperature data points per acre, several times per minute, of the entire Earth, I would agree they are getting the accuracy of data they claim. IIRC, some areas of many square miles are claimed to be accurately measured by a single data point. Prove that assertion. Now to claim the same accuracy from any source that is not following the above methodology (tree rings or ice cores for example) is an act of blind faith.
We all know the effect of the Sun on the local temperatures on a daily and yearly basis, due to distance and angle changes, but is the Sun's output really perfectly constant over decades and centuries? Does the Earth's orbit not vary by even a few miles at times? Can either be proven?
Why write the sun out of the equation? Cause it don't fit the narrative?
Seems more like a First World Guilt Religion's version of original sin to me. which kinda splains their sales pitches and defensive arguments.
Quite an extrapolation from a claimed 8% decrease in key nutrients to junk food.Ammianus wrote:http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... ide-000511
This is idiotic. America is overweight because we eat 85% processed foods.Ammianus wrote:http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... ide-000511
There aren’t any projections for the United States, where we for the most part enjoy a diverse diet with no shortage of protein, but some researchers look at the growing proportion of sugars in plants and hypothesize that a systemic shift in plants could further contribute to our already alarming rates of obesity and cardiovascular disease.
Typhoon wrote:Quite an extrapolation from a claimed 8% decrease in key nutrients to junk food.Ammianus wrote:http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... ide-000511
The article and research cited also neglects to mention an obvious comparison: field grown versus greenhouse grown crops. For example, tomatoes.
To optimize plant growth, the CO2 level in a greenhouse is nearly three times higher than atmospheric, ~11000ppm versus ~400ppm, respectively.