From the University of Maryland: Looking to the past to predict the future of climate change
FROSTBURG, MD (August 5, 2013)—Climate changes how species interact with one another—and not just today. Scientists are studying trends from fossil records to understand how climate change impacted the world in the ancient past and to identify ways to predict how things may change in the future, according to a new study by University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science researcher Matt Fitzpatrick and colleagues published in the August 2 issue of Science.
Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer. Knowing how climate change altered the interactions between plants and animals in the past may help us understand whether there are identifiable patterns that could give us clues into what will happen in the future.
“Looking to the past is one of the few ways ecologist have for understanding how natural systems respond to climate change,” said Fitzpatrick of the Center’s Appalachian Laboratory. “When we look to the fossil record, from hundreds of millions of years ago to near present day, we see episodes of climatic change and biological upheaval, and we see similar patterns.”
For example, changes in temperatures may force certain animals to move to different territories and new predatory-prey interactions my result. Some may go extinct. Changes in carbon dioxide levels may make it easier for new plants to take over the landscape, such as more shrubs growing in the Arctic. All of these changes shake up how the ecosystem and food webs work.
“Because these patterns emerge repeatedly and largely regardless of place and time,” Fitzpatrick says. “It suggests that similar underlying processes drive how natural systems respond to climate change and provides a glimpse of what could be in store for the future.”
The worry is that the rate of current and future climate change is more than species can handle naturally. “People are comfortable with the way things are now – we know where to plant crops, where to get water,” said lead author Jessica Blois of the University of California, Merced. “We want to know how to respond to the changes that are happening, but if the future is highly novel, then it’s also hard to predict.”
“Climate Change and the Past, Present and Future of Biotic Interactions” is published in the August 2 issue of Science. Authors include Jessica Blois of the University of California, Merced, Phoebe Zarnetske of Yale University, Matt Fitzpatrick of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and Seth Finnegan of the University of California, Berkley.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science unleashes the power of science to transform the way society understands and manages the environment. By conducting cutting-edge research into today’s most pressing environmental problems, we are developing new ideas to help guide our state, nation, and world toward a more environmentally sustainable future through five research centers—the Appalachian Laboratory in Frostburg, the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Solomons, the Horn Point Laboratory in Cambridge, the Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology in Baltimore, and the Maryland Sea Grant College in College Park. www.umces.edu
* * *
When viewing reconstructed temperature timelines, the slope of the current increase of 1 C. over the last 130 years is not greater than that leading up to the MWP, Roman WP, etc. It would be marvelous if these researchers would properly substantiate claims they make which become the basis of the entire article. Eventually, someone is going to start looking closely where our money goes.
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer.”
Prove it! Show me the “Climate Record” that you used! If you are a scientist, you should be ashamed making statements like that! “10,000 years or longer” goes back at least 4.5 billion years. This is more drivel…
How about how natural events caused warming and cooling? Not just altered the climate!!!
Published in Science and their 1st reference is S. A. Marcott, et al.
Will this paper have and maintain credibility?
I’m really struggling to see how those claims of “faster than the last xxx years” can be substantiated.
Even accepting that past temperature reconstructions are accurate, what temporal resolution is possible from before the instrumental record? Seeing as current warming has consisted of about a decade or so of rapid increase followed by just as long a plateau (for every year of which the “smoothed” rate of recent change decreases) unless they can say honestly that the paleo record has a resolution of better than 10 years I don’t see how such claims can possibly be supported?
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer. ”
That’s false. Why didn’t the reviewer notice?
The default state of the earth for the last 2.6 million years has been a glaciated state for more than 85% of the time. This interglacial period we now live in is the exception and not the rule. When the earth arises from a glaciated state to an interglacial, the global temperatures will rise by 12 degrees C within a century. The future episode of the earth is to return to a glaciated state and mankind’s meagre annual contribution to greenhouse that by itself has minimal effect on the world’s climate, is not going to change anything. Where are the real scientists who know about earth’s past?
Didn’t we just see an article similar to this in another thread? Too lazy to look, but I’ll debunk this one the same way I debunked the last one:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
“We want to know how to respond to the changes that are happening, but if the future is highly novel, then it’s also hard to predict.” So in other words, it’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. And especially when you base your predictions on misinformation and playstation models based on wrong assumptions.
Funny, that still doesn’t stop them from making them though.
I read till the first obvious lie and quit. 2nd paragraph, first line. But this dreck will satisfy their publishing requirements and keep them in good standing at their university for another year, I have no doubt.
And of course, it’s “Science” Magazine doing the aiding and abetting. They should post their new motto openly: “Helping academic hacks ride the gravy train for years and years now!”
“… but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer.”
How many times are they going to repeat this lie? There is ample data in the Greenland ice cores that shows remarkable changes in temperature over a few decades time far exceeding what we’ve seen in the last few hundred years. It must be easy conducting “science” when you get to choose to ignore inconvenient data, would have made a masters thesis easy.
Here’s the real reason for all the climate change focus, straight from a top-level UN IPCC Official, a person named Edenhofer: ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’. If you have issue with this idea, take it up with Edenhofer: edenhofer@pik-potsdam.de. The writers of pieces like this, and the researchers being highlighted here, are just falling into line with orthodoxy.
No true fossil record is capable of distinguishing biological 10000 year intervals, even if ‘instantaneous’ events withinnthe horizon can be identified. Witness the remaining controversy over the Alvarez hypothesis from the irridium layer discontinuity about dinosaur extinction and the Chixilub event. So understanding consequences of ‘rapid’ AGW climate change over such ‘brief’ time intervals using paleontology methods is ruled out from first principles. Which only shows how low Science has sunk, a level their new self described SEAL trained UDT scuba diving editor in chief is apparently accustomed to. This new editorial FAIL amply demonstrates the point.
A gem:
“if the future is highly novel, then it’s also hard to predict”
Scientists are studying trends from fossil records..
Which is not going to tell them one dang thing, nothing is the same now.
….Why don’t they put half this time, effort, and money into getting hormones out of our water……….
Well I asked this question before. What is the accepted unit of climate change, that allows one to quantify the rate at which climate changes ?
And what of evolution. Supposedly, species change (by natural selection) in response to their environment; which is not to say, the climatic conditions of their environment, which is just one factor, but every aspect of their survival success.
So does the fossil record, meter climate change, or evolutionary change ?
If an animal or plant (species) moves its center of living, up to some higher, or wetter, or dryer etc place, does that mean that place has changed, or did the species, just discover that it was unoccupied space, they could take advantage of.
Climate changes; species adapt, either deliberately or by selection. How does the record distinguish between them ?
but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode….
That’s because the default position is a lot colder you morons…
…I’m caffeinated up
Most spieces on Earth was not able to adapt to the sudden climate change 65 million years ago and this was far from a unique situation. Aprox. 98% of all ever existing spieces are extinct and not due to man …
And regarding the “recent rate”, the ice core samples show something not so different …
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science unleashes the power of science to transform the way society understands and manages the environment. By conducting cutting-edge research into today’s most pressing environmental problems, we are developing new ideas to help guide our state, nation, and world toward a more environmentally sustainable future….
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and so forth; what they really do is unleash the power of hype, but neither are they any too swift at that. This sort of approach culls out the intelligent and attracts the other types.
“””””…..For example, changes in temperatures may force certain animals to move to different territories and new predatory-prey interactions my result. Some may go extinct. Changes in carbon dioxide levels may make it easier for new plants to take over the landscape, such as more shrubs growing in the Arctic. All of these changes shake up how the ecosystem and food webs work……”””””
OR !! some species may become more (or less) successful, by adapting to a climate, that others find less habitable so it may be less crowded living space. So how do you prove whether climate or species changed, and what is the definition of the unit measure of climate change, that lets one even define what a rate of change is ?
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer.”
That propaganda only works on a target audience which has never seen the likes of http://s7.postimg.org/s59zem9pn/temphistory.gif (which is a version of http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg except correcting a minor error of misplaced
labels on the right); the multiple degrees/century natural change (far faster than now) seen repeatedly on the left is of note, from a plot by Easterbrook using Cluffy and Clow 1997 from ice core temperature reconstruction.
Recent temperature, sea level, humidity, cloud cover, and ice extent history fit the pattern and prime cause in http://s23.postimg.org/qldgno07f/edited4.gif as illustrated there.
I know a medical researcher who had to let go two of his researchers (Ph. D) who had been with him many years due to lack of funds. How does money get funneled to pay for this type of study?
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate … ”
————————————————
“Repeatedly”?
The lack of precision in climate “science” has been noted before. But here we go again.
“Repeatedly” implies regular intervals. Or it may mean the same thing happening with unspecified breaks in between. But it refers to the same thing happening more than once.
It might seem like nit-picking, but to me illustrates that they have not even bothered to define the terms that are so freely thrown around subsequently.
I wonder if they publish this stuff to see how much of a response [how high we jump] they can get.
I didn’t even make it to this gem: “Changes in carbon dioxide levels may make it easier for new plants to take over the landscape, such as more shrubs growing in the Arctic.” Correct use of the word “may” so that there can be no rebuttal!
It really appears that “magic CO2” can do just about anything, but make scientists more intelligent…
Is this sarcasm?
Technologically competent science has discovered:
Any credible change to the level of non-condensing greenhouse gases doesn’t have, has never had and will never have significant effect on average global temperature.
GW ended before 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
AGW never was. http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
Average global temperature is extremely sensitive to low altitude cloud area change http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/
What the IPCC won’t tell you http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/
the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer
I assume that they are -deliberately- clouding the issue by conflating projections with actual data. Because otherwise the article appears as though written by someone with brain damage.
@Dr. Lurtz
I think you hit the nail on the head but I would put it into terms more direct: One of the major negative results of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is that it makes climate scientists stupid.
Funny how in less than one decade we went from the warmest climate in 1000 years (The infamous Hockey Stick), to the warmest climate in 10,000 years. At this rate, we will be at the warmest climate in 5 million years around 2020.
Am much more interested in looking for the causes of ice ages and sudden climate cooling, as theses would have a major impact on the modern world. lt is sudden climate cooling that is the real thing we need to fear.
Used to live in a cave, now live in a centrally heated house with hot and cold running water, food from the supermarket etc etc.We have survived a massive change from cold to warmer.
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer.”
10k years is probably significant if you’re an old-timey Bible fundamentalist who believes Earth to be only 6k or 8k years old. For those of us who live in reality and understand the age of our planet to be in the neighbourhood of 4,560,000,000 years, 10k years is an inconsequential blip of time – on the order of approximately 0.00022% the age of the Earth.. So how does the recent rate of change compare with other changes occurring since the beginning of geological time – you know that 4,559,990,000 years you conveniently left off? Since the author(s) are aware of climate changing ‘repeatedly’ over the geological history of earth, failing to provide any context for their first claim puts the remainder of their article squarely into the realm of propaganda.
Shoot, if they’d even put the last 10,000 years into context with the current ice age dating back 2,580,000 years, and which has seen seven well-documented cycles of glaciation and subsequent warming, it would be an improvement. But even at 2,580,000 years, the current ice age only represents 0.05658% of the age of the planet. Claims can only have meaning if provided context, and these claims have none.
The conniving duplicity is appalling.
Explain why humans are not part of nature, not part of survival of the fittest. I don’t recall Darwin excluding humans from natural selection nor claiming we are not part of this ecosystem. All I can see here is climate science is saying Darwin was wrong–humans are outside of natural selection and nature.
johanna says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:46 am
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate … ”
————————————————
“Repeatedly”?
I agree, but actually, I find the use of ‘repeatedly’ to fully confirm that they accept significant climate changes have occurred in the past. Moreover, this further confirms that no-one can discern the ‘current’ climate change as being anything out of the ordinary, let alone of direct anthropogenic cause,
Hence, in order to define the current warming as AGW, they must:
a) determine what (amongst all the possible variables and multiple combinations thereof) caused previous warming (and/or cooling)
b) determine and demonstrate that these effects cannot have caused the observations of today.
c) demonstrate a robust link between anthropogenic CO2 and current observations
d) demonstrate that the current observations are indeed robust (which they are not IMHO)
So, for me, I like the term ‘repeatedly’ !
Modern humans are an integral part of the biosphere. Some of what we do is good and some of it is bad. If there is too much bad then we self destruct and are eliminated. That’s just how old Mother Nature works. I am not worried about that, my worries are more political as there in lies the real danger to us all, tyranny over liberty. And the connection between AGW and tyranny is glaringly obvious.
Don’t send your kids to the University of Maryland. All they learn is BS (Bad Science).
They’re hot in Frostburg
l think the only sure thing that will cure climate science of AGW and that is sudden climate cooling.
The first sentence of Blois et al 2013, Science 2 Aug 2013:
Ref. 1 is Marcott-2013 (also Science, March 2013). Marcott retreated from the 20th century findings in his FAQ.
Without the 20th century work, Marcott can only be used to support long term cooling over the past 6000 years, if you believe any of it at all after the adjustments and redating.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/16/mcintyre-finds-the-marcott-trick-how-long-before-science-has-to-retract-marcott-et-al/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/03/proxy-spikes-the-missed-message-in-marcott-et-al/
See Spotfire view of adjustment, redating, and individual trends at April 4, 9:10am
Ref 2 is S. Solomon et al., in Climate Change 2007, contribution to FAR IPCC.
Only advocacy, ignorance of the record, and pal review, all working together can explain how Blois can get away with such an unsupported opening sentence. The rest of the data shows nothing to support the claim.
To top it off, it seems that the Science Mag. Editor-in-Chief, believes the message of the paper hook-line-and-sinker.
The above was tinder for Willis Eschenbach’s An Open Letter to.. McNutt (Aug 4)
But maybe the real irony and contradiction here is in the Blois-2013 abstract:
“Similar processes” across the geologic time scale? How can human induced climate change, operable only since the mid 20th century be included in those “Similar processes”? “Similar Processes” must be of natural origin and variation.
“l think the only sure thing that will cure climate science of AGW and that is sudden climate cooling.”
That is caused by global warming and it’s worse than we thought.
Why don’t these CAGW charlatans read their history and realize that it’s COOLING that decimates human civilizations, not beneficial warming trends….
The Wolf Grand Solar Minimum (1280~1350) marked the beginning of the LIttle Ice Age. The sudden drop of global temperatures created terrible famines and awful storms that lead to the deaths of an estimated 20% of the entire European population in the early 14th century.
The LIA cold shortened growing seasons and decreased crop yields, which weakened the population and exacerbated the effects of the Black Death, which started in 1348 and killed roughly 50% of the survivors of the LIA induced cold-weather famines….
The Wolf Minimum was soon followed by the Sporer and Maunder Minima, which further decreased temperatures leading to numerous famines around the world and killing millions.
We’ll soon find out if the Svensmark Effect is a real phenomenon as there is a high probability the next solar cycle could be the beginning of another Grand Solar Minumum cycle. If the Svensmark Effect is proven real and there is a Grand Solar Minimum, the CAGW zealots may have some serious blood on their hands for pushing junk science, like this unsubstantiated paper clearly is.
DirkH says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:18 am
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer. ”
That’s false. Why didn’t the reviewer notice?
Because the whole system has been packed by and for the watermelons. (See the previous blog by Eschenbach about Ms. McNutt(er).) And it will continue to be packed by them unless we loudly reveal their repeated lies and distortions
SAMURAI says:
August 5, 2013 at 11:19 am
LIA cold led not only to famines but to pandemics.
The last & perhaps most famous such disasters of the LIA were the Irish Potato Famine & cholera pandemic. Europe came to rely on tuber crops instead of grains because summers grew too cool, making overpopulated Ireland especially vulnerable.
Between 1758 and 1775 the BEST temperature record (Downloaded 20121218 5:30 PM CST http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/) warmed 2.67 deg. C. That is 15.7 deg. C per century. The BEST temperature record is for land only, but serves as a proxy for global temperature. Of course, the record has huge error bars, but are we to assume other types of proxies (tree rings, sediments, etc.) have better error bars? The rate of warming/cooling before 1850 is very crude (it is rather crude after 1850 as well) and no definitive comparison can be made to current rates. We just don’t know.
In 6 PDF pages the word “may” was used 17 times; “might” 1 time; “could” 6 times; and “possible” 1 time. Too much speculation in a scientific paper for me.
Fossil records? How many millions of species have come and gone and failed to appear as a fossil? How many climate indicators occurred and failed to appear in fossils? The fossil record is the most incomplete data set in all of science! That is why it is likely the perfect ‘official record’ for less-than-reputable ‘scientists’ to make their case.
Martin M on August 5, 2013 at 11:53 am
Especially when we continously are destroying the evidence, by using it in engines and heating systems ..
It looks like they were careful not to explicitly mention the last glacial termination.
Willis, a few posts back, pointed out.
Dr. Lurtz says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:09 am
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer.”
Prove it! Show me the “Climate Record” that you used! If you are a scientist, you should be ashamed making statements like that!
Correct. The 8.2 k event was in the last 10 k years. Do they pretend current warming exceeds the 9.2 event? Or do they base their affirmations on the Marcott et al joke as Joe says?
Joe says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:13 am
Published in Science and their 1st reference is S. A. Marcott, et al.
the sudden cooling 8200 years ago was followed by fast warming 200 years later:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
is the climate change now comparable with the climate change that created the Sahara desert?
End of the African Humid Period 6000 years ago:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data6.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112002430
or the Drought and the Akkadian empire 4200 years ago:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data7.html
“Paleoclimatic data from other sites also document significant changes in climate throughout the region, including precipitation reductions of up to 30% between 4200 and 4000 years BP inferred from cave deposits in present-day Israel (Bar-Matthews et al. 2003). Evidence for a dry spell of several hundred years also exists from cave deposits in Italy, marine sediments from the Red Sea and Arabian Sea, and an ice core from Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa ”
Not to talk about the MWP with thousands of references:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Or even shorter events that we cannot explain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_changes_of_535%E2%80%93536
Scientists? No, simply clowns.
Here is something to note about previous warming rates. You do have to wonder how much carbon dioxide had to do with the rates of warming before 1940.
There has been a 0.8C global surface temperature rise since around 1850. How much of this 0.8C rise was caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
“People are comfortable with the way things are now – we know where to plant crops, where to get water,” said lead author Jessica Blois of the University of California, Merced. “We want to know how to respond to the changes that are happening, but if the future is highly novel, then it’s also hard to predict.”
Here’s how to respond. In the last several decades, based on all empirical data, continue to plant crops in the same locations that have produced good results in the past. The 2 biggest changes are:
1. Expansion of agriculture in some regions(where droughts occur) and/or better success in dry regions has been possible, thanks in part to increasing CO2
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N16/B2.php
2. Harvesting and storage require more resources because of crop/food production/yields increasing across the board………..thanks in part to globally well mixed CO2. Free to all the worlds farmers/producers.
I was able to find numerous studies that come to that conclusion(CO2 is harmful to plants) but none of them use legit plant science as I understand it.
I predict crop yields for a living, based mainly on the influence of weather but take into account all elements that factor in.
I will say that increasing CO2, if it means some modest warming will lead to a slight increase in excessive short term rain events and flood damage to some crops, especially during the planting season. These would occur with a low frequency and be far outweighed by the benefits of CO2 fertilization which would be present 100% of the time.
@Martin M 11:53 am:
Fossil records? How many millions of species have come and gone and failed to appear as a fossil?
This is slightly OT, but it reminds me of a TED talk by Jack Horner called: Shape Shifting Dinosaurs. A very entertaining 18 minutes.
The summary of the talk is that there are lots of adult dinosaur species found in the fossil record. But where are the young ones? His talk is the research he did that came to the conclusion that some of the adult species identified were actuallly young and juveniles of other known adult species. As an example, he took the end of the Cretaceous 12 dinosaur species and he found 5 were really the younger versions of the other 7.
Moral of the story: There may be fewer species in the fossil record than we think.
For anyone whose interested here are just a few changes of climate over the last 10,000 years. It makes today’s climate look positively benign. Do these people ever actually look beyond the Medieval Warm Period?
About 12 700 years ago temperatures went dowen several degrees in just a few decades. A thousand years later they went up even more, also in just a few decades.
Almost every species of plant and animal on this planet survived both those changes. So we live on a planet where the wildlife has been specially selected to be insensitive to abrupt climate change.
I say “almost all species” because a few species, mostly plants, have evolved through hybridization or polyploidy since then, These few species have not been proof-tested for climate robustness yet.
“the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer”
“very rapid warming at the start of the Bölling-Alleröd period, or at the end of the Younger Dryas may have occurred at rates as large as 10°C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere.” in: IPCC TAR vg1 report
Well, the abrupt warming at the end of the Younger Dryas occurred some 11,500 years ago, which is longer than 10,000 years indeed. However, observed warming in the past 50 years is only 0.74°C, according to HadCRUT 4.2. Now, can we say 10 “far exceeds” 0.74 or not? Of course we can, it is more than an order of magnitude (13.5 times) bigger, after all.
Was the end of the Younger Dryas natural or anthropogenic? Have some species survived it? Place Your Bet$.
Looks like Matt Fitzpatrick et al. are cherry picking deniers, going against consensus science settled by the IPCC once and for all.
“…the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer.”
I’m sure there are no proxy records of 10,000 years ago with the resolution to show blips of 1 degree over a hundred-year duration (like our current one). Are there?
Maybe yes on short term geologic scales but no on longer term scales. I’m sure I’m wrong here but I vaguely recollect that over 98% of species that ever live are now extinct. From what I recollect extinction is the rule not the exception. PS I am a skeptic as you might have gathered.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/07_1.shtml
http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Saving-Reptiles-and-Amphibians/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Extinction
Jimbo on August 5, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Just my point @ 9:36 am and more spieces are actually discovered every year compared to the number that disappear.
Nothing new under the sun. Why worry about the future?
Retreat!
“… we are developing new ideas to help guide our state, nation, and world toward a more environmentally sustainable future …. .”
I only read the summary above, but found no mention of HUMAN CO2 emissions. The CAGW campaign is over.
REJOICE!
Yes, they have fallen back on their “Plan B – Sustainability,” but it is a weak, weak, position. We are not even CLOSE to running out of coal or fossil fuels and nuclear energy is ready-and-willing. We are not even CLOSE to needing the silliness of “sustainability” (such things as cute-but-stupid “Small houses” [Bing it — it’s hilarious; the latest way to be holy, live in a little holy house, parking your holy (hybrid) car beside it, eating only holy foods like “organic” fruits and tofu and algae, of course) measures.
Sustainability: “Tranquil” – “Like a Little Village” — Freedom? Not so much.
Amusing, attractive to some people, but weak, very weak. Joe and Maria voter are not going to vote for the Hippy Commune candidate. Scientists for Truth 1 — Fantasy Science Club 0.
(Note: from above video, the sane ones leave and become free market entrepreneurs. LOL)
Janice Moore says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:04 pm
“Yes, they have fallen back on their “Plan B – Sustainability,” but it is a weak, weak, position. We are not even CLOSE to running out of coal or fossil fuels and nuclear energy is ready-and-willing. We are not even CLOSE to needing the silliness of “sustainability””
Just to head off any Club of Rome lurkers, we also are never going to run short of metals and other subsurface resources because of three main things: a) all the metals we have mined are still here, the gold from the middle ages is still here. We are getting better at accumulating and re-using them over and over and b) the demand is not for Zinc, its for anti-corrosion materials – zinc is largely used as a coating on sheet iron for barn rooves, culverts, etc. etc. but we have many other materials. An engineer friend of mine once said that you could make a radio out of concrete, quartz crystal, steel wire and I can’t remember all of it but they were abundant. Heck, radios aren’t even much used anymore and the ones that are weigh a few ounces or even a few grams. c) we have gotten better and better at finding more and more – like we’ve just pushed peak oil and gas off a century or more and coal can even be made into both.
Thanks, Gary Pearse (5:40PM), for supplementing my low-information post with a LOT of great information.
Apparently it makes one use commas in strange places.
“Climate change has occurred…”
Climate change is constantly taking place on Earth… as well as on all astronomical objects in the universe that have an atmosphere.
It’s fine (and commonplace) for researchers to try and provide support for their pet theory. But there is a limit to the delusion one is allowed to build into a hypothesis.
Globull-warming propaganda out of Frostburg. The irony burns.
“but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer. ”
WHAT?
Have I missed something?
Satellite temperature records since 1979 trend, quite slowly, upwards, Trends in sea level changes are slowly upward. All this temp/SL rise is consistant with the slow steady rises we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Llittle Ice Age. I can’t see a carbon signal in this empirical data.
Also, the predicted “Troposheric Warm Zone” does not exist. Millions of weather baloons show this. EMPIRICALLY.
Please tell me how I am mistaken.
Further to the above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ocean-pages/ocean/
“””””……B. Baak says:
August 5, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Nothing new under the sun. Why worry about the future?…….””””””
Well I worry about the future; I’m planning to spend the rest of my life there !
“””””…..Jimbo says:
August 5, 2013 at 3:19 pm
tty says:
August 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm…………
Almost every species of plant and animal on this planet survived both those changes. So we live on a planet where the wildlife has been specially selected to be insensitive to abrupt climate change.
Maybe yes on short term geologic scales but no on longer term scales. I’m sure I’m wrong here but I vaguely recollect that over 98% of species that ever live are now extinct. From what I recollect extinction is the rule not the exception. PS I am a skeptic as you might have gathered………””””””
I believe half of the people who have ever lived in America are still alive. (along with about 5% of all of the humans there ever was.)
“””””…..DirkH says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:18 am
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer. ”
That’s false. Why didn’t the reviewer notice?……””””””
I thought that the recent rate of global warming was zero; for the last 17 years and some odd months in fact.
So I think you are correct Dirk.
“””””……Dr. Lurtz says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:55 am
I wonder if they publish this stuff to see how much of a response [how high we jump] they can get.
I didn’t even make it to this gem: “Changes in carbon dioxide levels may make it easier for new plants to take over the landscape, such as more shrubs growing in the Arctic.” Correct use of the word “may” so that there can be no rebuttal!
“”””””……. Correct use of the word “may” so that there can be no rebuttal!……”””””
Actually NOT The word “may” bestows permission.
There usage could be the correct usage of “might”, but it is not correct usage of “may”.
Roy, I wish you wouldn’t use the meaningless phrase, so called ‘climate change’. We have climate only and that covers all changes within its’ cycles.There is no such thing as climate change, a redundant phrase that is bereft of scientific meaning and contains propaganda value only. It’s just a red hot political button meme. All too many skeptics have carelessly taken to using this meaningless propaganda phrase that only speaks of unscientific and illogical nonsense.