Rate Of Climate Change and Rate of Adaptation Deliberately Distorted

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

There is nothing permanent except change. – Heraclitus

If you want things to stay as they are, things will have to change. – Giuseppe di Lamedusa

Moving the Goalposts Again.

Climate changes significantly all the time. Those who point this out are considered more dangerous than global warming skeptics. Perversely and incorrectly, they are called climate change deniers, with its holocaust connotations. However, even a brief examination of the historic record shows how much climate changes naturally. This information is reaching the public and reducing people’s fear and is encouraging questions.

The political reaction, as in the past, is to move the goalposts. From the pulpit of the White House, John Holdren created climate disruptions; another ‘spin’ phrase used to imply abnormality and therefore due to humans. As proof, he pointed to media reports of increasing weather extremes. They weren’t extreme, but if you don’t know the history and the facts, exaggerations in the media make them so. It becomes a classic circular argument. Most people don’t understand that hurricanes are normal weather events. What has increased are the number of people who choose to live in hurricane regions and media attention, who are the phony storm chasers.

Forced to acknowledge that climate changes required a new name, but also a change in the story. It had to be abnormal, so now the claim is it is more rapid, frequent, abrupt and severe than anywhere in history. It isn’t, but the idea maintained the fear and guilt factors – millions will die, plants and animals will suffer and it is your fault. Maybe opponents to these claims should be called Climate Disruption Dastards.

Why Does Rate of Change Create Concern?

Every time a new threat is promoted, evidence shows it is unsubstantiated. Usually, the threat only worked because the public doesn’t understand. Once they appear to understand, a new threat is required. Increased rate of change resulted in stories claiming nature would be unable to adapt because the rate of change was abnormal.

It resonated because western science is based on the philosophy of uniformitarianism (gradualism), which assumes that processes occurring today were the same in the past. Charles Lyell summarized it as, “The present is the key to the past.” It was interpreted, incorrectly, that nothing changes much over time.

Lyell’s book Principles of Geology accompanied Darwin on the Beagle and profoundly influenced his thinking. Darwin’s theory required a much older world with time for evolution to occur. It replaced Catastrophism, which is ironic, because it held that the earth has been affected in the past by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope.” Briefly, at the end of the 20th century, Chaos theory appeared, but faded. Stephen Jay Gould proposed a compromise called “punctuated equilibrium,” which said change was gradual with occasional catastrophic events.

This idea coincided with what appeared to be a good example, evidence that an asteroid wiped out dinosaurs 65 million years ago. (I celebrate that event each year, because it allowed the mammals and ultimately humans to emerge – it is my religion of Asteroidism). Despite this, traditional uniformitarian thinking persisted because it formed the philosophical thinking of western science. One result was the assumption that recovery from catastrophic events would take considerable time. This translated into the claim that human induced climate change was beyond the capability of plants and animals to recover.

Examples of Gradualist Thinking

An example of this thinking, accompanied a forest policy proposal for the Province of British Columbia by Werner Kurz.

“The climatic “comfort zone” for some species of trees is shifting north and it is moving far faster than the natural climate changes recorded in the geological record.  “As long as change is a slow process the response of vegetation is to migrate with the shifting climate zone,” Kurz said.  Paleo-ecologists measure the pace of migration in kilometres per century, but climate bands in recent years are moving at least 10 times that fast, outstripping the ability of plants to cope with the change, he said.” “Relying solely on the biological migration mechanisms of trees is not going to be sufficient,” he said.

Proper scientific method challenges such theories and thinking. Apparently, Kurz didn’t do his research. First, he should look at the palynological record for the last 12,000 years to get a measure of the rate and extent of natural change. Using the geologic record for recent change is like measuring human hair with a yardstick.

Diane L. Six, like Kurz in BC, lacks wider knowledge, historical perspective and understanding of climate patterns and mechanisms. In a Billings Gazette opinion article, Six wrote,

As scientists who have lived and worked in Montana, we understand the scientific principles demonstrating that human activity is rapidly changing our climate. That is why we joined over 100 other scientists across Montana in sending a letter to our top elected officials calling on them to support policies that reduce carbon pollution.

Thousands of scientists have produced thousands of studies on the causes and impacts of climate change. Each of those studies has undergone a rigorous peer review process. Building such a body of evidence to explain what is happening in the world around us is a careful, slow, and painstaking process, which rarely yields broad agreement. That’s why it is so remarkable that 97 percent of scientists who study climate change say that it is real, and largely caused by human activities that produce carbon pollution.

Climate change is a major concern for Montana. Scientists in Montana and around the West have documented that spring snowpack is melting on average two weeks earlier than in the 1950s. There has been an extension of two months in the wildfire season since the 1980s. August stream flows now average 20 percent lower than in the 1950s. These impacts are already having notable impacts on agriculture, recreation, wildlife, and water resources.

 

Ms. Six makes the inferred, but unsubstantiated connection between IPCC science and local conditions, while ignoring facts. For example, Ken Schlichte notes NOAA data shows that

· Montana’s meteorological winter (December – February) temperatures have trended downward at a rate of 4.2 degrees F per decade over the last 10 winters.

· Montana’s meteorological spring (March – May) temperatures have trended downward at a rate of 2.2 degrees F per decade over the last 10 springs.

 

There are also the inferences that the pattern Six describes are not normal and will continue. What Kurz and Six observe is perfectly normal. The problem is, the trend is incorrect. It cools, while they demand preparation for warming. They also need to know about the rate of adaptation to climate change. But these are problems created by academics and bureaucrats with a vested interest in perpetuating fear, while not understanding the science.

Kurz and Six must consider the events following the eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980. It provided a natural experiment that rejected predictions that recovery would take a hundred years or more. After just thirty years, scientists were amazed at the recovery rate. They were amazed because the basic philosophy was wrong; it’s the same error that allows the false claim that change is too rapid for nature to cope. Both Kurz and Six quote ecologists, but one of the earliest ecology studies illustrated how much animal populations fluctuate in response to climate changes that in turn affect food supply. Figure 1 shows a plot of Lynx population number fluctuations over 100 years. There is a link to sunspot numbers that links to the precipitation pattern.

clip_image002

Figure 1.

 

An Example Of Rapid Forest Adaptation

In my climate research I found a map drawn in 1772 by fur trader and self-taught biologist Samuel Hearne. He followed the tree line (he called it the “woods edge”) from Churchill on the southwest coast of Hudson Bay to the Coppermine River on the Arctic coast and plotted it on a map. It’s a very distinct boundary, as I know from flying over this region for five years. The entire story was published as “Historical Evidence and Climatic Implications of a Shift in the Boreal Forest Tundra Transition in Central Canada“, Climatic Change 1986, Vol. 7, pp. 218-229.

Hearne, whose observations on Arctic Fox are still considered among the best, made a remarkable, astute, comment in his journal.

“I have observed, during my several journeys in those parts that all the way to the North of Seal River the edge of the wood is faced with old withered stumps, and trees which have been flown (sic) down by the wind. They are mostly of the sort which is called here Juniper, but were seldom of any considerable size. Those blasted trees are found in some parts to extend to the distance of twenty miles from the living woods, and detached patches of them are further off; which is proof that the cold has been increasing in those parts for some ages. Indeed, some of the older Northern Indians have assured me that they have heard their fathers and grandfathers say, they remembered the greatest part of those places where the trees are now blasted and dead, in a flourishing state. (Hearne, 1772, p.138).

clip_image004

Figure 2

Source: Author

Hearne’s observations fit the climate record. The tree line advanced during the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) then retreated in the cooling to the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Hearne describes this with his comment that this is “proof that the cold has been increasing in those parts for some ages”. It has warmed since Hearne’s time and the tree line has advanced with a pattern of movement appropriate for the general circulation of the region.

Comparing the “woods edge” (Figure 2) as Hearne drew it in 1772, with the tree line determined 200 years later by Rowe (1972) and Elliot-Fisk (1983), the amount of movement is significant. In the west/east portion from Great Slave Lake to Churchill on Hudson Bay, movement was up to 300 km. This means it moved more than one kilometer per year. Even if it is only half that, it is a remarkable rate of adjustment in one of the harshest growing environments anywhere.

Emergence of New Land Provides Evidence

While flying anti-submarine patrols in the North Atlantic in the 1960s I had the privilege of watching, month by month, the appearance of a new island off the Icelandic coast. Named Surtsey, it provided an opportunity for modern science to monitor how quickly life establishes itself. Insects were among the first to arrive, with birds bringing seeds and providing nutrients. Scientists were surprised and impressed by the rates of colonization and adaptation. It is not surprising to people who live on the land.

Once you realize climate changes significantly all the time it is much easier to understand that nature would have evolved for that eventuality. But, this is only one of the misconceptions created to promote environmentalism as a religion and climate change for a political agenda. It is a long list, but partly includes, the claim extinction is abnormal, when it is the norm; that if one species disappears the entire interconnection collapses; that warming will cause nothing but problems.

Further proof of political exploitation, but also the rapid rate of change, is that just 35 years ago governments were preparing for cooling. Indeed, some of the scientists active today in promoting the threat of warming were measuring and warning about the impact of cooling. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) sponsored studies on the impact of cooling on agricultural productivity in various regions. The CIA produced a few reports including, “The Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate”. OPR – 401, August 1974.

Governments are misled and misdirected by the science and policy suggestions of the IPCC. They’re adapting for warming when cooling is occurring and is the greater threat because adaptation is more difficult. If it occurs as rapidly as it has in the past we appear disadvantaged. However, humans have prospered and progressed because we used technology, invention and innovation to adapt. Fire, clothing, irrigation are all adaptations to climate change. The biggest threat is to our food supply, but genetic modification, which allows adaptation in two years compared to over 15 years for plant breeding, significantly improves our adaptability.

The only thing changing faster than the climate are the names given to political attempts to exploit people’s fears for a political agenda. In approximately 14 years it is variously Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Catastrophe, Climate Chaos and currently Climate Disruptions. As Bertrand Russell said, ‘Change’ is scientific, ‘progress’ is ethical: change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy.”

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

From what I’ve heard, the birds were not the only ones providing nutrients at Surtsey. A couple of scientists/workers were chastised for soiling the pristine environment when nature called.

ossqss

What we see is Climate Capitalism. They simply profit as opportunity to embellish science and funding becomes available. Simple really, from a monetary perspective. Think about it…….. once a precondition is conditioned, the rest is easy, even if very wrong…….

Brute

Climate Capitalism, I like that.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

This is a good piece of work. We need such reports from all around the globe, so that we can advise the governments, more particularly developing countries where fund crunch hinders the development. We can present adaptation measures under different fields of importance. In fact I presented this in agriculture as back as 1993 through my book “Agroclimatic/agrometeorological techniques: As applicable to dry-land agriculture in developing countries”. IPCC’s misguided reports lead to wrong path and wastage of funds that are meant for development.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Dave

Mankind’s ability to infuence global climate is conjecture.
We think we are relevant, but that’s just a curious function of humanity’s narcissism.

phlogiston

Strange weather –
gods must be angry –
we must offer sacrifice
oldest scam of them all.

A typo: it’s Giuseppe di Lampedusa

bushbunny

Yes, Dave. I agree, no amount of models and graphs will convince me that climate changes. We know it does! But to the degree the IPCC, Mann and Gore suggests is just fraud. And politically biased against developed nations. Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. And weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, typhoons and tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis kill us.
And wars and famines caused by displacement of subsistence farming communities. Cities have to cull a lot of the UHI effects, how I don’t know. Clean water and sanitation must be pristine.

John Moss

More like Climate Socialism. The “experts” and “planners” have advised the state and the state has decided how things should be. The state will extract taxes from all to give to the very same experts and planners, first to campaign so that what they have decided becomes accepted, then to make happen that which the experts and planners have decided should happen.

dp

Lost me at

Figure 1 shows a plot of Lynx population number fluctuations over 100 years. There is a link to sunspot numbers that links to the precipitation pattern.

because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Very interesting post, otherwise.

Dave says:
July 27, 2014 at 9:33 pm
“Mankind’s ability to infuence global climate is conjecture.
We think we are relevant, but that’s just a curious function of humanity’s narcissism.”
Beautifully said!

bushbunny

Agree Murray. If human beings could change the climate, we’d be God like.

Khwarizmi

Stephen Jay Gould proposed a compromise called “punctuated equilibrium,” which said change was gradual with occasional catastrophic events.
========
“Punctuated equilibrium” was just Gould’s fancy new name for what Darwin himself described in 1859. Gould relied on his audience to trust his word rather than checking the primary sources. Here’s Darwin:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, not that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. – Origin of Species. p.p. 118-119.

In other words, “punctuated.”

Windsong

Dr. Diana Six is a professor at the College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana. How is it possible Dr. Six writes about “carbon pollution” in Montana without referencing studies (if any) done by her own university showing the ill effects of this pollution? Exactly what has some extra carbon dioxide done to the forests of MT? Once Dr. Six digs into that 97% number a little further, she may join me in finding it remarkable that there are 3% of scientists that study climate change who do not think it is real. And that “largely” blaming human activity for our changing climates (whether in Sydney, MT, or Sydney, NSW) is due to UN IPCC bureaucrats.

Kelvin Vaughan

Latest News from the BBC, If the dinosaurs hadn’t died out they would still be alive.

The examples given by Dr Ball are just a drop in the bucket. Paleoclimatologists and prehistorians have documented both climate shifts and cultural shifts throughout the Americas and Eurasia.
The climate shifts during the early to middle Holocene (5000 years ago) were much greater than those in recorded history which started to give a murky picture of climate changes about four thousand years ago. Hubert Lamb documented in great detail more recent historical impacts of climate change.
What emerges is the fact that warm periods like our own have been times of prosperity and cold periods of hardship,
Let us hope that the 20th Century Warm Period (20CWP) continues for a hundred years so that the children and grandchildren of today’s people will continue to grow in prosperity. Let us hope that when the climate flips to cold, that by then the people of the world are rich enough to avoid hardship.

richard verney

“Climate changes significantly all the time. … However, even a brief examination of the historic record shows how much climate changes naturally.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I join issue with those assertions, since they lie at the heart of a fundamental mistake as to what climate actually is. You are correct to observe that there are large natural changes, but that is not changes to climate, but rather that is precisely what climate is, ie., climate is a range. I expand:
This debate has got off to a bad and unscientific start since climate is not stasis. Climate is not measured in terms of a few tenths of a degree C. Climate is not global, but regional.
The distortion of these fundamental facts and/or a failure to understand and appreciate them, has for too long skewed the debate, and has hindered an objective assessment of what is going on, and whether any action is required at all, and if so whether a policy of adaption ought to be the preferred response.
The average temperature for a region, or country is only a very small part of the mix, as you will see when you look at the recognised classifications of climate, such as Koppen..
Climate is a range of bounds, within which there is much variation on yearly and decadal and multidecadal basis. Any variations within those bounds, is not climate change, but instead is just part of the natural climate for that particular country, or region.
The problem is that Climate is not measured over 30 years, but rather over hundreds of years, I would venture to suggest perhaps even on a millenium timescale.
If you were to look at the historical records of any country/region, you will observe that what we are seeing today has all been seen before, many times in the past. What we are seeing today is within the bounds of the historical climate record for that country/region.
Even within the LIA, it was not universally cold, there were warm summers, there were mild winters, it was merely that the mix, during that period, tended towards the cool end of the bound, rather than lying more in the middle, or towards the warm end of the bound.
At the moment (2014) we are not witnessing climate change, and that is why not one single country has since say 1950, or say 1975 changed its Koppen classification (or other recognised system of climate classification). That is why in the IPCC report, it does not set out a table detailing country by country their pre industrial climate classification, there say 1950 climate classification, their 2013 climate classification.
So called ‘Climate Change’ is a political issue. From a scientif perspective CO2 does not per se cause climate change. The scientific issue is ‘Global Warming’; the theory being that the basic physics of that gas as a GHG will lead to warming. That is something that the science can test.
We should not allow the debate to be skewed off topic. It is important that the debate remains one of AGW. That is where the science can shed light.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

Having explored some garden centers, it seemed like the simplest explanation for the speedy migration of bamboos from South-East Asia to Europe. But perhaps e.g. the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wouldn’t mind explaining the migration speed and patterns of more than 30,000 different kinds of plants living in Kew.

Thanks Dr Tim, valuable enlightening work.
& thanks also commenters.
May I ask why I see 1950 quoted as a timepoint, particularly for CO2 effects?
Thanks in advance.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

Kew plant paradise is in London, which not only has been warming since the 19th century, but is also notorious birthplace of ‘smog’. Nowadays London seems to be methane powered. As I understand the recent AGW priority fears then, Kew is the first destined to doom.
How about the prominent nature conservationists like Prince Charles showing example by redirecting most of his superfluous wealth to the commonwealth botanical gardens, Svalbard Global Seed Vault etc? I’m convinced that they are as such more beneficial to the environment and, like Xmas, also to the mental health and well-being of his subordinates than his favorite doom prophecies blaming them.
Taking into consideration the extent to which the belief-laden anthropocalypse has persisted, academic reputation rescue operation may first need to go further back into basics – even up to epistemology. It’s unlikely that the overwhelming generosity of the wealthiest doomsayers suffice to restore it.
Fortunately, anthropogenic climate project and even research have now been completed. The generous public funds can be redirected for paying back the national debt, reducing tax and perhaps even financing the necessary fundamental research.

Nylo

Spot on, thanks.

Billmelater

It is true that climate changes all the time. Much work has gone into finding why climate changed in the past. Very good explanations are provided.
The unfortunate thing is that none of those causes are operating now to cause the change in climate we are currently experiencing.
The question is what is causing the change now? Could it be due to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since industrialisation? It is a known greenhouse gas that would change earth’s heat balance which could cause the climate to change.

richardscourtney

Billmelater:
At July 28, 2014 at 2:39 am you write saying in total

It is true that climate changes all the time. Much work has gone into finding why climate changed in the past. Very good explanations are provided.
The unfortunate thing is that none of those causes are operating now to cause the change in climate we are currently experiencing.
The question is what is causing the change now? Could it be due to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since industrialisation? It is a known greenhouse gas that would change earth’s heat balance which could cause the climate to change.

How do you know that
“none of those causes are operating now to cause the change in climate we are currently experiencing”?
Do you mean that the recent lack of discernible global warming or cooling for nearly 18 years means those “causes” must have ceased operating?
And, no, it could not be that carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere is changing the “earth’s heat balance” because the carbon dioxide increase continues but discernible global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.
Richard

One of life’s early lessons is that change is the only constant in life. For a child it is difficult for them to accept, even though they are changing the fastest in their environment.
It seems that the alarmists never learned that. Any change is “unprecedented” and “unusual” regardless of the geological record that shows it is not. So every change is catastrophic and devastating even when it clearly is not.

Billmelater

Richard, the eighteen year pause is a myth. Heat records are being broken all the time. Just google hottest year and you will find the hottest year was not 18 years ago. While your at it google second hottest year. It was also not 18 years ago. Check the hottest 10 years and you will find they are not 18 years ago. In fact you may find that they have occurred in this century.

Chris Wright

Ironically, a standard part of global warming alarmism is that there were occasion in the past when the climate apparently changed dramatically fast, in some cases in just a few years or decades.
Chris

Chris Wright

Billmelater says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:31 am
“Richard, the eighteen year pause is a myth….”
Are you serious? Take a look at the data, you can see there is no positive trend in this century. Because we’re still at the top, it’s very easy for new short term records to be set. But they are just that: short term.
Science should have no place for short term records, as they are meaningless and are only useful for propaganda. All that matters is the trend.
Chris

Billmelater

Chris, do as I suggested Richard do, google a few heat records and you will see it is a myth.

richardscourtney

Billmelater:
Thankyou for your clarification for me that you provide at July 28, 2014 at 4:31 am and which says in total.

Richard, the eighteen year pause is a myth. Heat records are being broken all the time. Just google hottest year and you will find the hottest year was not 18 years ago. While your at it google second hottest year. It was also not 18 years ago. Check the hottest 10 years and you will find they are not 18 years ago. In fact you may find that they have occurred in this century.

Oh! Thankyou, that explains much. You have been fooled into thinking reality is a “myth”.
For more than 17 years there has been no discernible global warming or cooling at 95% confidence (i.e. the standard confidence level used by so-called ‘climate science). In fact, taking linear trends and ignoring confidence levels indicates global cooling for more than a decade; see here.
Also, there is an outlier which is NASA GISS but its ‘adjustments’ are so extreme that its global temperature time series is completely corrupted, as you can see here.
I hope that clears up your misunderstanding. I commend that in future you check source data for yourself because otherwise activists may again dupe you.
Richard

Billmelater

Richard, so,which was the hottest year then? I bet it wasn’t 18 years ago.

PhilCP

I just figured out where the IPCC gets its facts : Google!
Thanks Bill!

Bruce Cobb

@Bill, you seem confused, possibly from guzzling climate koolaid. The RSS records do show no warming for nearly 18 years now. See?comment image
Like all true Believers, you have things completely backwards. It is manmade warming/climate change/chaos/disruption/extreme weather change which is the fabrication.
But you’re just a know-nothing Warmist troll, right? Why let facts get in the way of your Belief system?

richardscourtney

Billmelater:
You have yet to provide ANY information. You have only provided unsubstantiated assertions which are denied by reality. On the other hand, I have provided links which justify all my statements which are true and accurate.
Clearly, your indoctrination is so severe that you have not dared to make the one click of a mouse which would have shown you reality because your reply is to ask me at July 28, 2014 at 5:28 am

Richard, so,which was the hottest year then? I bet it wasn’t 18 years ago.

If you had dared to look at reality you would have seen the “hottest year” was 1998 which was 16 years ago, but so what? Warmest is NOT warming.
The trend indicates a slight cooling, and when 95% confidence limits are applied then there has been no discernible change (as I explained to you).
I repeat what I advised you in my post you purport to be answering

I commend that in future you check source data for yourself because otherwise activists may again dupe you.

In this case you were so afraid to check the data I provided for you that you provided a self-defeating argument. If you claim warming consists of obtaining the warmest year then – according to you – we have had cooling since 1998.
Richard

Alx

There is a new movie coming out called “Into the Storm”. The trailers play on the meme with large block lettrs: “we have been having more and more extreme weather in the past decade….” interspersed with clips where 747s are being blown around like leaves in the fall.
I have mixed feelings about this since I love exploitation movies, which to me this obviously is. My concern is too many people will not recognize this as the same kind of movie that has gigantic ants and grasshoppers invading a small town due to some local nefarious radiactive testing.
In reality it is goofy entertainment, which is fine, on the other it could become another propaganda tool in the “OMG CO2 we are all gonna die” tradition.

more soylent green!

ossqss says:
July 27, 2014 at 9:10 pm
What we see is Climate Capitalism. They simply profit as opportunity to embellish science and funding becomes available. Simple really, from a monetary perspective. Think about it…….. once a precondition is conditioned, the rest is easy, even if very wrong…….

This is what we call a complete misuse of the word capitalism. In capitalism, people conduct transactions freely. What we have here is fascism.

Steve Keohane

Lynx population changes over 100 years?!?!?!? Bull crap. They can’t count populations today, and certainly could not 200 years ago. In 1995 I had a lynx stand on my rear patio deck and look into my living room through a glass door. Was able to examine it for a good minute prior to its leaving. Ten years later the DOW (Dept of Wildlife) announced they were going to “re-introduce” them to the area. They talk of reintroducing wolves here to west central Colorado, I have heard of ranchers seeing them for a couple of decades now. In Jan of 2013, I saw one at the top of my driveway, well over 100 lbs. Reported it to the DOW online. Received an email they would contact me if they thought it was a viable report. I also noted that I lived with an arctic wolf for the past decade and certainly know what they look like, and I have never seen a 100lb+ coyote… Never heard from them.

AlexS

Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa was the writers and it was a character in his famous book Il Gattopardo that said it.
Great actor Burt Lancaster was in the film made by Visconti.
The original is more drastic than usual English translation: If you want things to stay as they are, everything will have to change.

more soylent green!

Where did you guys learn your definition of capitalism — from an Occupier rally?

Gamecock

“Climate changes significantly all the time.”
I agree with
richard verney says:
July 28, 2014 at 12:15 am
Only weather changes all the time. By definition, climate CANNOT change all the time.

Robert W Turner

Billmelater, please tell us the forcings that caused climate changes in the past that are not operating today. Then perhaps you can write an essay to explain to us how the 18 year hiatus is actually just a myth, oh wait why am I even acknowledging a guy that doesn’t know the difference between warm and warming.

Robert W Turner

Gamecock says: Only weather changes all the time. By definition, climate CANNOT change all the time.
Can a moving average change all the time? Yes. You get it yet?

more soylent green!

Billmelater says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:31 am
Richard, the eighteen year pause is a myth. Heat records are being broken all the time. Just google hottest year and you will find the hottest year was not 18 years ago. While your at it google second hottest year. It was also not 18 years ago. Check the hottest 10 years and you will find they are not 18 years ago. In fact you may find that they have occurred in this century.

Hereby we have more proof that the true believers neither understand science, or scientific language nor plain English.

Steve Oregon

Billmelater,
Here in Oregon we have a disproportionate share of those like you who cannot distinguish significance or the difference between some alarmists cited observations and global temperature trend.
Why is it that you are unable to perceive what “trend” means?
Your basis for claiming “the eighteen year pause is a myth” appears to ignore the concept of “trend” entirely.
You are trying to dispute the absence of a trend without providing evidence of one.
You are disputing what has not been claimed by anyone.
No one disputes that the globe is still in it’s end of last century warm phase.
The beef and pause is all about the previous warming trend coming to a pause for almost as many years as it had warmed.
Telling everyone it is still warm does not debunk the pause in trend.
So gee whiz thanks. Yes we’ve seen warm years and some records broken.
But where do you think the global temperature is heading?

James the Elder

Billmelater says:
July 28, 2014 at 5:28 am
Richard, so,which was the hottest year then? I bet it wasn’t 18 years ago.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
You are so right!!!
In the US, it was 1936. No need to Google, here’s a link to lots of goodies on that year.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=1936
It was so hot, even the data tampering hasn’t managed to erase it—-yet.

RomanM

Steve Keohane says:
July 28, 2014 at 7:50 am

Lynx population changes over 100 years?!?!?!? Bull crap.

Maybe… Maybe not.
Here is a link to the 1942 paper in which the graph appeared:
http://jxshix.people.wm.edu/2009-harbin-course/classic/Elton-1942-J-Anim-Ecol.pdf
It appears that the study was based on very extensive fur trade data produced by the Hudson’s Bay Company. No (climate) models appear to have been used in the writing of the the paper although in the summary the authors conclude that:

The wide synchronization of the cycle in different parts of Canada for at least 100 years, its parallel occurrence both west and east of the Rockies,and its independent occurrence in aquatic species such as the muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) and the salmon (Salmo salar), strongly suggest the existence of a climatic factor partly controlling it.

Had it been reviewed by Cook et al. for their 97% consensus paper, this conclusion would likely have given a classifiication as strongly supporting CAGW. 🙂

tadchem

I love the opening quotes. They are very close in spirit to one of my favorites: “Change is inevitable, so in the long run only adaptability is sustainable.”

Jimbo

I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard that animals and plants can’t cope with change. Can you get any more rapid than this?

Abstract
Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing
Abstract
Five decades after a series of nuclear tests began, we provide evidence that 70% of the Bikini Atoll zooxanthellate coral assemblage is resilient to large-scale anthropogenic disturbance. …..
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X07004523

University of Tennessee – April 8, 2013
Professor’s Research Shows Gulf of Mexico Resilient After Spill
…….“The bottom line from this research may be that the Gulf of Mexico is more resilient and better able to recover from oil spills than anyone thought,” Hazen said. “It shows that we may not need the kinds of heroic measures proposed after the Deepwater Horizon spill, like adding nutrients to speed up the growth of bacteria that break down oil, or using genetically engineered bacteria. The Gulf has a broad base of natural bacteria, and they respond to the presence of oil by multiplying quite rapidly.”…..
http://tntoday.utk.edu/2013/04/08/professors-research-shows-gulf-mexico-resilient-spill/

Life is persistent. A few degrees warming is generally good and not bad.

Jimbo

It is a long list, but partly includes, the claim extinction is abnormal, when it is the norm; that if one species disappears the entire interconnection collapses; that warming will cause nothing but problems.

Ya damned right.

Abstract
Biological extinction in earth history
Virtually all plant and animal species that have ever lived on the earth are extinct. For this reason alone, extinction must play an important role in the evolution of life. The five largest mass extinctions of the past 600 million years are of greatest interest, but there is also a spectrum of smaller events, many of which indicate biological systems in profound stress. Extinction may be episodic at all scales, with relatively long periods of stability alternating with short-lived extinction events. Most extinction episodes are biologically selective, and further analysis of the victims and survivors offers the greatest chance of deducing the proximal causes of extinction. A drop in sea level and climatic change are most frequently invoked to explain mass extinctions, but new theories of collisions with extraterrestrial bodies are gaining favor. Extinction may be constructive in a Darwinian sense or it may only perturb the system by eliminating those organisms that happen to be susceptible to geologically rare stresses.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/231/4745/1528.short

———————-

Concept Extinction: past and present
The fossil record, together with modern data, can provide a deeper understanding of biological extinction and its consequences.
Extinction is a fundamental part of nature — more than 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. Whereas the loss of ‘redundant’ species may be barely perceptible, more extensive losses of whole populations, groups of related species (clades) or those that share particular morphologies (for example, large body sizes) or functional attributes such as feeding mechanisms, can have profound effects, leading to the collapse of entire ecosystems and the extermination of great evolutionary dynasties.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6975/full/427589a.html

Jimbo

Kelvin Vaughan says:
July 27, 2014 at 11:40 pm
Latest News from the BBC, If the dinosaurs hadn’t died out they would still be alive.

Some made it through and evolved. They’re called birds.

James the Elder

We made it too.