Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change May Modify Half Earth's Plants
PASADENA - By 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth's land surface.
Predicted percentage of ecological landscape being driven toward biome-level changes in plant species as a result of projected human-induced climate change by 2100. Biomes are major ecological community types. (Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech) Climate change will also drive the conversion of nearly 40% of land-based ecosystems from one major ecological community type - such as forest, grassland or tundra - toward another, according to a new NASA and university computer modelling study.
"For more than 25 years, scientists have warned of the dangers of human-induced climate change," said Jon Bergengren, a scientist who led the study while a postdoctoral scholar at the California Institute of Technology in the U.S..
"Our study introduces a new view of climate change, exploring the ecological implications of a few degrees of global warming. While warnings of melting glaciers, rising sea levels and other environmental changes are illustrative and important, ultimately, it's the ecological consequences that matter most."
Climate change causes relocations
Researchers from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the California Institute of Technology investigated how Earth's plant life is likely to react over the next three centuries as Earth's climate changes in response to rising levels of human-produced greenhouse gases. Study results are published in the current issue of the journal Climatic Change.
The model projections paint a portrait of increasing ecological change and stress in Earth's biosphere, with many plant and animal species facing increasing competition for survival, as well as significant species turnover, as some species invade areas occupied by other species. Most of Earth's land that is not covered by ice or desert is projected to undergo at least a 30% change in plant cover - changes that will require humans and animals to adapt and often relocate.
In addition to altering plant communities, the study predicts climate change will disrupt the ecological balance between interdependent and often endangered plant and animal species, reduce biodiversity and adversely affect Earth's water, energy, carbon and other element cycles.
Blocking successful migrations
When faced with climate change, plant species often must 'migrate' over multiple generations, as they can only survive, compete and reproduce within the range of climates to which they are evolutionarily and physiologically adapted.
While Earth's plants and animals have evolved to migrate in response to seasonal environmental changes and to even larger transitions, such as the end of the last ice age, they often are not equipped to keep up with the rapidity of modern climate changes that are currently taking place. Human activities, such as agriculture and urbanisation, are increasingly destroying Earth's natural habitats, and frequently block plants and animals from successfully migrating.
To study the sensitivity of Earth's ecological systems to climate change, the scientists used a computer model that predicts the type of plant community that is uniquely adapted to any climate on Earth. This model was used to simulate the future state of Earth's natural vegetation in harmony with climate projections from 10 different global climate simulations. These simulations are based on the intermediate greenhouse gas scenario in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. That scenario assumes greenhouse gas levels will double by 2100 and then level off.
Warmer, wetter Earth
The U.N. report's climate simulations predict a warmer and wetter Earth, with global temperature increases of 2 to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, about the same warming that occurred following the Last Glacial Maximum almost 20,000 years ago, except about 100 times faster. Under the scenario, some regions become wetter because of enhanced evaporation, while others become drier due to changes in atmospheric circulation.
The researchers found a shift of biomes, or major ecological community types, toward Earth's poles - most dramatically in temperate grasslands and boreal forests - and toward higher elevations.
Ecologically sensitive 'hotspots' - areas projected to undergo the greatest degree of species turnover - that were identified by the study include regions in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau, eastern equatorial Africa, Madagascar, the Mediterranean region, southern South America and North America's Great Lakes and Great Plains areas.
How to preserve biodiversity
The largest areas of ecological sensitivity and biome changes predicted for this century are, not surprisingly, found in areas with the most dramatic climate change: in the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes, particularly along the northern and southern boundaries of boreal forests.
"Our study developed a simple, consistent and quantitative way to characterise the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, while assessing and comparing the implications of climate model projections," said JPL co-author Duane Waliser. "This new tool enables scientists to explore and understand interrelationships between Earth's ecosystems and climate and to identify regions projected to have the greatest degree of ecological sensitivity."
Bergengren added, "In this study, we have developed and applied two new ecological sensitivity metrics - analogs of climate sensitivity - to investigate the potential degree of plant community changes over the next three centuries. The surprising degree of ecological sensitivity of Earth's ecosystems predicted by our research highlights the global imperative to accelerate progress toward preserving biodiversity by stabilising Earth's climate."
80 Comments so far
Show AllThe world we are leaving to our grandchildren and their children will be a much harsher one, and they will justifiably blame our inaction, irresponsibility, cowardice, and careless consumption for it.
This is the most important crisis facing the planet now, and most media continue to ignore it.
So could you please explain, why have children and grandchildren?
I had two children in the mid-90s, when things looked a lot different than they do now. They are wonderful people. If I knew what I now know, I would not have had them. It's that simple, I would NOT have brought them into this world. They are talking about going to college, their plans for the future. It breaks my heart.
I read Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" as a 16 year old teenager in 1970 - just as The Pill became available to someone like me who didn't think I wanted children and believed what Dr.Ehrilich said about the unsustainability of population growth. I made the decision not to bring another child into the world because I sensed that things were going to get ugly. I've had a good life but it saddens me to see our planet struggling to survive. And so far, at 57, I've had no regrets about not leaving any decendents to suffer for our over consumption and population.
It would be helpful if women had control of their bodies and had parity in the workplace and in govt. When environmental abuse becomes as disgusting as defecating in your living room, the consumer zombies in the urban theme park aka USA might get off their flat earth butts and..........and.............have to get grip! It will be much to late then.
It's called life - and is the only hope for the future.
Spacing children out, every for or five years, say, after each child is weaned, is nature's way.
This step alone would greatly help in so many ways, only one of which would be flattening the growth curve.
I don't know why you have such trouble with the concept - no children - no future.
Manysummits
========
How else is that question going to be asked in future forums? The future echo of your elitism.
There's always a poster who pushes the population numbers to divert the subject away from the ecological issues. Often the thread gets derailed as some push the population issue, while others make it about lifestyle and how higher income groups use far more than their rightful percentage of resources. These items are certainly factors that impact the overall scheme of things. Yet they are used in this forum to distract from the content of the article, itself. ------------------------------------------------------
I'm witnessing evidence of this article's contention. I've lived in North Florida since l995 and I've never seen December temperatures in the mid-50's at night, and in the high 70's (or 80's) by day. Sure, we'd have these departures from time to time, but it's as if winter hasn't even considered touching down. Most people don't realize that nature's Acts are timed like the mood changes in a classical symphony. If the leaves don't open at their scheduled hour, there will be no food for insects or the birds that feed upon them. Right now, the trees and plants are having difficulty reading the temperature cues... it's been THAT hot. ----------------------------------------------------------------
Human beings may rejoice in another warm day; but when the balance is off, living systems begin to decline and likely die. Mother Nature did not come up with Her infinitely complex biomes overnight. Nor can living systems adjust in the relative ecological blink of an eye to radical changes in not just temperature, but the underlying RHYTHMS of life. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently someone in the forum put the entire blame for the ecological state of the world on the baby boomers. Really? Who's been in power decimating the EPA and giving Big Business the power to run roughshod over every ecological kingdom? Plus since the Industrial Revolution, the predatory model that's seen so much resource depletion has been all the rage. Nature's misuse, and the climate imbalances that are now in view are NOT the responsibility of just one generation. However, it is certainly long overdue that sentient persons take stock of how they live and adopt the adage: "To live simply, that others may simply live."
Mother nature will bat last and the message of simplicity will be adopted, like it or not... because survival itself will depend upon it.
Queerplanet, thanks for the comment, "WHY HAVE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN?
Children are NOT necessities!!! Saturdays are laundry days. I do ONE load of wash per week, use ONE drier. A couple with twin kids on my floor do EIGHT loads of laundry per week, use more than one drier. GET THE MESSAGE???
Planet Earth doesn't need even ONE MORE HUMAN!!! Each and everyone of us HUMANS is REDUNDANT!!! All that humanity is smothering the planet to death.
And we are the ones "culling" other species in what's left of the wild, while the lines to the "kill floors" in slaughterhouses get longer and longer and longer and longer, etc, etc, etc.
"The surprising degree of ecological sensitivity of Earth's ecosystems predicted by our research highlights the global imperative to accelerate progress toward preserving biodiversity by stabilising Earth's climate."
.
Yeah but how's this research going to be applied?
Also what's with the conflicting title and first sentence of this article...
"Researchers from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the California Institute of Technology..."
Um, everybody does know that NASA sends nuclear missiles and spy satellites up into space with gargantuan millions of gallons of jet-fuel rockets, right, hence the name "Jet Propulsion" in there? And so, it is like if the Pentagon starts claiming to need a "Peace Mandate" because they tired of blowing things up and want to just shake hands and smoke a peace pipe on it. Right...
In other words, massive skepticism has just crept into the discussion about the reality of Climate Change because if the "NASA Jet Propulsion Lab" is interested in promoting and validating it, it begs the question, who actually benefits from taking that position.
Here's a novel stratagem for climate denialists: It's all just military propaganda! OMG! James Hansen works for NASA! Global warming my foot, we're all being played for suckers by the imperialist war machine! And so on! And so forth!
So true, because it is rather novel to consider that military propaganda has in fact EVER largely impacted societies in this world. I mean, my Gawd, the US "defense industry" budget is only 50% of all spending in this country. You think a country as meak as ours, with its paltry defense systems/apparatus/complexes can buy you anything like "military propaganda" to affect outcomes, like say, I donna know, lack of WMD found/not found in Iraq? Toooootallly NOT possible. So the Packers on Faux News tonight?
Right. The existence of military propaganda is conclusive proof that global warming is a hoax. The scientists reporting a link between rapidly rising greenhouse gases and rapidly rising temperatures are actually intelligence operatives. Is that your point?
And is it yours that NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists are "reliable sources" on the science of climate change?
Yep. And there are many other scientists from all over the world working independently of NASA scientists, who replicate the results of the NASA scientists. Science has its own checks and balances.
But I'm still waiting to hear: what is your point - that the international scientific consensus on global warming is just a propaganda campaign?
Are you some kind of weirdo, or working for Exxon, or what?
One Zero--Oh yeah, I work for Exxon...lol...and you I guess work for the Bill Gates I-stole-it-so-now-its-mine-to-privatize-the-world-with Foundation?
I stated what my intensions were at first glance. Go back...read again, with less irrational film in your eyes...
We're still waiting to hear what your point is: that all climate scientists are intelligence operatives? You're not going to own up to your insinuations with a straight answer, are you?
Yes! The scientists are very controled. They are told what to say...
I guess "we're" not waiting (do you hear voices sometimes, when there is no one else around?) since someone else already answered with the obvious answer to your non-question (do you often create ad hominem attacks out of thin air too?)
SkDoTo wrote:
massive skepticism has just crept into the discussion about the reality of Climate Change because if the "NASA Jet Propulsion Lab" is interested in promoting and validating it
This is corporate propaganda. The campaign to discredit climate science has been the most sophisticated, well-funded, and successful propaganda campaign in the history of manufacturing consent.
This is not thin air, this is CO2-choked polluted air, brought to you by Exxon.
No.
It is MORE accurate to say "This" appears to be self-serving "corporate propaganda."
Saying something "is" something, is only providing an association in language, but not necessarily provable in fact.
And while you state an obvious truth about the pervasive and only sometimes persuasive "campaign to discredit climate science," you somehow miss questioning how that EVEN being so well funded, they were and are STILL unable to control the mass media messaging entirely, and buy-off enough of the lobbyists and Congress critters (pets) with their continued support of funding for climate science research.
It almost appears that you believe that we have in part, still, very expensive science independent of corporate controlled govt funding, and our web-based media similarly acting altruistically for the benefit of people's common needs and dreams (whilst the primary mass media and govt still mostly propagandize, in synthetic opposition). Why would you want to exhaustively believe that ?
Clearly, CD and other independent sources do publish many climate related details that the mass media has yet to promulgate, but I'm almost certain that this approach may be just part of the con job I mentioned elsewhere, that lends credence to views that superficially (for now ) supposedly the media, corporations, and govt oppose.
I guess that would make what I see dimly, to be an EVEN BIGGER and more deceitfully deceptive and heinous "campaign in the history of manufacturing consent" ?
Sure he (and I) could be a "corporate propagand[ist]," but your saying that he is -- doesn't make it so, even if it is plausible.
As far as "CO2-choked polluted air" is concerned, speculative Wall St bubble machinery and manipulative mental pollution has for centuries fed them massive wealth from the destruction of the rest of the people. Trading carbon futures, appears to be yet a new bubble farm, to do more of the same (independent of the reality and truth of possible climate catastrophes).
Almost certainly "brought to you by" the PTB, banksters, and various other corporations and their agents (e.g. USA Congress, executives, & SCOTUS).
So let's do follow the money, and wonder how it is possible that the PTB could be so incompetent and foolish to allow science and information that actually erodes their long term maximized bottom lines ?
Could the PTB -- ALL of a SUDDEN, started caring about us common folks, and our common survival -- as contrasted to their profits (at any cost) ?
Or is it more plausible, that we're being played in ways we collectively don't yet see ?
Think about the many purposeful layers of deceit, obfuscation, and disinformation -- that we all (mostly) see from 911, Anthrax, & WMD -- and wonder why future bankster profiteerism would be much different than the similar basis of warmongering ?
.
What a sickening contention to make now, Skdoto. Is that you, Maciek? Just because greed is overly represented in the human condition, doesn't mean that there is no evidence of climate change. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several years ago a Pentagon report was leaked that defined climate change as the major upcoming threat. It was understood there'd be more climate refugees, more battles over water, etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Your deceit, at this point in time, is DIABOLICAL. You've purposely conflated most Progressives' dislike for militarism with grounds for suspicion over a subject that threatens us all. Plus, most of us are on the front lines of EVIDENCE. We've seen wild weather and an odd parade of radical geological events. ----------------------------------------------------------------- It used to be that a major earthquake was a once in a decade or more event. Now there have been about 5 in the past year or so. And massive tsunamis were even more rare; yet Japan got hit just a few years after the one that impacted Southern Thailand. -------------------------------------------- You're probably working for a right wing organization that wants business to have "freedom" to do as it pleases, since there's nothing so sacred as the pursuit of profit. Earth Mother be damned, and all life upon her, as well. -------------------------------------------- Permission to treat the witness as hostile for the above-stated reasons.
I forget that CD is like HP or MJ. NEVER contradict the "contractual narrative," lest you be called a "hostile witness," and possibly working for Exxon no yet (who may just be the Oil Corp who juices-up those jet propulsions that NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory needs for its services... oh the agony and the ecstasy.)
(Aleph Null and Siouxrose--with all the same tribe here present, I submit that as normal practice, "divergent narratives" are part and parcel of the behavior of tribesmen, if for anything to just "mix the damn place up," beyond the regular critical analysis cr*p. Nuff said.)
The point of what constitutes the 'manufactured' portions of the 'consensus,' from the complicated sometime apparently contradictory truths -- is an issue few wish to deal with.
Divisively accentuating and polarizing important issues of real climate impacts and modeling challenges -- by accusing one is either supporting our common human survival, or working propaganda for oil companies -- has nothing to really do with science.
I suspect it's much about purposefully narrowing the public debate and accelerating the rush to judgement and making huge decisions, when too little (other then unrelenting greed) is obvious.
To wit :
The FEAR of terrorists wares thin after a decade, because false flag attacks are so difficult to make REALLY convincing, being so completely unscientific and/or FBI entrapments.
The FEAR of economic disasters, clearly contrived bubbles designed to burst, can only go so far before people suspect that they're being egregiously played (OCCUPY EVERYTHING & 99%).
The FEAR of ecological disasters, as in the Gulf, is again self-limited -- even when seen as likely contrived and perhaps purposefully creating bad climate conditions.
With very little evidence (other than decades of the PTB demonstrable fear mongering expertise), my intuitive suspicion is that our FEARS of near immediate ecological annihilation from perceived human correctable (or not) factors, is much about new ways of extracting ever more wealth from the people, when other Machiavellian mechanisms are of dwindling effectiveness.
Most likely, for people to WILLINGLY hand over EVEN greater proportions of our wealth to save our children, from what it a threat even greater than mere communism, terrorism, or banksters.
Brand me a cynic -- or worse -- but there's little money spent on anything these days that doesn't make corporations lots of money (now or very soon).
It's rather odd for me to have to defend an obvious truth that support for the public's common good and needs is at ALL TIME low point, due to corporate control of nearly everything.
Exactly who is ALLOWING so much of the public's money (and media attention) to be spent on climate research ?
Why is this about the ONLY situation where the public's supposedly true interests are being supported and served these days ?
Perhaps "climate science" has become a self-sustaining and growing community, a quasi-public international organization devoted to its own longevity and consistency ?
But worse still, perhaps non-consensus "climate science" is what will inevitably save us from what appears to me, to be in at least part, a contrived manufactured consensus ?
Why has corporatist inverted totalitarianism, somehow dropped the ball on this one issue of dominating every OTHER issue before the public, if not ultimately to make more money from it ?
Why is support for objective, OPEN, and non-consensus "climate science" unscientifically castigated, unfunded, and maligned as being ONLY pure propaganda (or worse, suicidal) ?
How can it be ABSOLUTELY true and completely known FACT, that we no longer have the time or resources to thoroughly investigate what has happened, and will likely happen ?
Why do SO MANY people believe unequivocally, that any science (or opinion) that is opposing the consensus viewpoint is ONLY from paid agents from Oil companies ?
Doesn't this 'rush to judgement' bother other suspicious people, just like how one perceptively listening to their inner guidance, hears the whispers of intuition (too good to be true), and/or feels oneself being played in the middle of a 'long con' job (NOW: too bad to be true) ?
BTW -- I deny nothing about science and research.
What I know to be true, is that PURE research requires an open mind with little immediate expectations (and lots of extra long term funding) -- while applied (within the consensus) research is for rapid financial return from targeted products and nearly guaranteed profits.
I know that the real scientists that post here, will find that I denied nothing herein, and that I have clarified what non-scientists are mistaken about. This is only framed (by some) nonsensically as an either or situation, and science doesn't play that political game.
You are so right! HAARP and Chemtrail spraying are destroying our
planet. The is our home. Earth. You can't sh*t in your own backyard.
NASA does not launch spy satellites or nuclear missiles; the Air Force Space Command does. Two totally different agencies. NASA does share some launch facilities with the Air Force for their lunches - for example, the latest Mars rover was launched for Canaveral Air Force Base next to the civilian Kennedy Space Flight Ctr. Please learn something about the organization of your government.
The carbon footprint of NASA's launches are absolutely miniscule compared to the automobile and commercial aviation.
As someone who has grown up in the direct shadows of Lockheed Martin directly adjacent and connected to NASA [Edit: next to an air force/navy aircraft base,] (adjacent to and connected to Google BTW,) I can personally attest that what you are saying is BS, and propaganda, per your "understanding" of the government (try living in reality rather than disneyesqueland. You believe everything you hear on Faux News too?)
And, with that kind of rationality, ie "the carbon footprint of NASA's launches are absolutely minuscule compared to the automobile and commercial aviation," whereby dismissing it's militarist carbon footprint impact altogether, any other country that has a small carbon footprint can definitely NOT entertain any changes to its carbon footprint programs thusly, and in fact, any militarism footprint should be thusly discounted.
Edit: I bet you believe that the US is actually "ending the war in Iraq," and all our military bases are to be "given" to the Iraqis too (per this HP piece http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/iraq-withdrawal-us-bases-equipment_n_975463.html) as parting gifts for keeping the party going so long?
While their research, like any published R&D anywhere, has been used for military aircraft and missiles, NASA's programs have nothing to do with the military.
You are ascribing to the infantile "big bad-monolithic government" theory.
"While their research, like any published R&D anywhere, has been used for military aircraft and missiles, NASA's programs have nothing to do with the military."
Contradict yourself much? (Now that's some disconnect...)
No thanks -- for injecting condescending cyber bullying ad hominem attacks ("infantile") -- to honest questions and comments.
NASA managed the design, manufacture, and most of the operations the Space Shuttle.
The Air Force managed its own top secret launches of the used-in-common Space Shuttles, until it shifting backover to Atlas / Delta disposable ones. Big surprise, many subcontractors worked for both NASA and the Military on the Shuttle.
Many experts agree that the Military's extremely onerous added requirements ( weight, mission duration, polar orbit, altitude, and size ) imposed upon the Space Shuttle's initially more simplified design, are the reason it was so expensively complicated -- and ironically later dropped by the Air Force. Portions of USA civilian space budgets were thereby stolen from the public's programs -- to hide expenses of HUGE spy satellite launches.
Therefore it is an outright lie to say that "NASA's programs have nothing to do with the military."
In fact, the Space Shuttle could have been much more cheaply and efficiently based on the then top secret SR-71's engines, but the Military shot that idea down for (at that time) civilian use (only). The current batch of hypersonic Military-only vehicles prove this approach was as valid then as it is now.
Perhaps your "ascribing" lies to what factually occurred, is your attempt to hide the destructive co-option of NASA, by both the Military and their contractor's unrelenting greed and exercise of power -- against the public's better interests ?
Your knowledge of NASA is as twisted and nonsensical -- as it is for civil engineering (that 3 WTC collapses are only from gravity and 2 airplanes)-- indicating that you actually know little about both.
Honest people wonder, exactly why are you so insistent and arrogant about things you are so completely ill informed about ?
SkDoTo's original point here was that NASA's involvement in this study means that "massive skepticism has just crept into the discussion about the reality of Climate Change." Does this attack on the validity of climate science strike you as tenable?
Can you think of any predatory corporations known to sponsor irrational attacks on the validity of climate science?
In a way yes, in other ways no -- as this is far more complex & complicated than most give credence to.
Of course NASA/JPL's credibility is part of this picture, as I watched the initial political-based questioning of Hansen's promulgation of ideas antithetical to Washington DeCeit -- with some curiosity. How he kept a job 100% dependent on Federal funding AND approval, while being 100% opposed to Presidential "opinion" (now, not so much opposed) is still a great question to ask.
I replied below about what I see happening that is beyond suspicious to me (Dec 18 2011 - 8:12pm).
What I specifically mean, is that the mutually beneficial and independently proven objective "validity of climate science" is not at question -- by me.
Wayne provides the ultimate example of 'at the time' incorrect consensus of ALL experts, hounding Dr Semmelweis to his death (and perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocents), as things that people couldn't see (until microscopes were invented) obviously couldn't kill anyone.
I find it abhorrent (not too strong of a word -- from my point of view) that people such as yourself, sometimes lend indirect credence to those who polarize the actual process of science that must be looking at all sides of such crucial issues (and even beyond), particularly when human survival is threatened.
Accusing anyone NOT abiding by the I believe too narrowed consensus viewpoint, of somehow NECESSARILY being associated with "predatory corporations known to sponsor irrational attacks" is at best an exaggeration and at worst disingenuous.
Neither being "irrational" nor "attacking" -- has ever exclusively been proof of corporatist leanings, nor predation.
And while there is clearly proof of some purposeful predation against growing solidarity and coherence about validated climate science, there is also quite reasonable (even partly validated) hypotheses that reach non-consensus conclusions.
I smell a HUGE corporate rapacious RAT and political hay-making, and I've enough direct experience with science (and rats) to know that sometimes HUGE paradigm shifts are mandatory, before the true scope of reality is allowed to enter even supposedly objective scientists and experts.
Human language captured this little detail to remind us of HUGE paradigm shifts being revolutionary -- as heliocentric ideas were literally about the Earth revolving, but figuratively that word itself became imprinted with the new added meaning of revolution (revolt rebellion).
BTW, I do appreciate your calm defense of science against hyperbole and radicalizing influences -- of some perhaps overly enamored, ignorant, and arrogantly convinced with what they think is self-evident and everlastingly true (and that any that oppose them are either cads or devilishly malevolent).
I've taken the objective balance that you provide -- and do a great service to clarify -- and attempted to tilt it toward people allowing themselves to perceive a possibly broader set of truths.
That some of those questioning modeling accuracy and limits of certainty -- are also scientifically objective and desiring the best for humankind and the planet, and are NOT denying anything (other than a uniform and seamless consensus existing).
Thanks for giving it some thought. I feel gratified if you recognize that my motivation here is accuracy. It's a feeble goal - I have no idea what practical use people can make of accurate information.
After considering your cogitations, I still find it strikingly disingenuous when SkDoTo suggests that the entire field of climate science is sullied by the participation of NASA-JPL in one study. It is reasonable to doubt the sincerity of someone who engages in such an assault on reason.
And I appreciated your points, so I went back and critiqued his initial postings imbalanced exaggeration.
After being a careful listener of the clues of people's intent, you are correct that "It is reasonable to question the sincerity of someone who engages in such an assault on reason." Someone who misses obvious facts, acts emotionally, and conflates things may be like Wayne -- or much worse.
Similarly, I took on the (literally & figuratively) thankless task of toning down your attempts to reveal him as a possible propagandist, elsewhere.
I want to take the spirit of my screen name to heart, that those that pull things out of balance, need to be countered with natural forces to once again retain our overall balance, and open discussions. That is about real freedom of speech, to act progressively and to oppose those not serving the common good (but acting as if they were).
It is never censorship for honest folks to oppose ideas that they see as immoral or disruptive of their view of the common good, as that's the cornerstone of free-speech.
But those attempting to control 'our' frames of manufactured consensus, often deceitfully impugn the true progressives as manipulatively attempting to censor them (for being merely disagreeable). They want it both ways, that they can oppose and still be authentic -- while those that oppose them are controlling and acting as moderators and king and queens for a day.
The less balance and openness, the greater the supposed immediacy to act -- the more I smell nastier and more deceitful (but oh so plausible) rats.
I doubt that the provable results of science are ever of themselves about political or economic gains, although they too often become tools of those games -- with knowledge's links to power and control of folks.
What?
Why?
Even though I supported and defended some of what you posted after this one, I must object to part of this -- as Aleph Null pointed out below, what was your initial tone.
There's too much exaggeration going around here, and that doesn't and will NEVER allow nor lead to broader understandings and truth.
Your saying "massive skepticism has just crept into the discussion," is an example.
Science is science, only because it requires a long term viewpoint, independent review, verification, and validation.
There's a JPL engineer who attempts to invalidate those seeking the truth about 911, and even though he is supposedly expressing his own opinions on his own time -- the issue of conflict of interests doesn't come up -- while he's supporting the USA gov't's point of view and officially vacuous narrative.
The reverse situation is quite unlikely to occur.
Of course there's reason for skepticism, when ANY agency manipulated by billions of dollars of contracts (and subcontracts), particularly primarily profiting defense contractors -- are at issue.
Science of itself is impartial, however, all the players are all too human.
We worry about money but nature doesn't
I like that statement....
Arctic researcher Igor Semiletov has spoken, in a newspaper interview, of "amazing" methane vents his team observed over the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) in September 2011. But there are no published results yet, no solid numerical estimate of the current methane flux from the ESAS is available.
Anecdotally, Semiletov seems to be describing methane releases large enough to affect the global atmospheric concentration. Now we see results from NOAA's carbon monitoring station in Barrow, Alaska which apparently confirm Semiletov's recent account.
This chart scares the hell out of me. I don't like to put it that way, but I don't know how else to say it. Whether it means the beginning of a self-reinforcing feedback loop (the methane tipping point) or only the onset of more accelerated global warming, it's very bad news because of the tremendous potency of methane as a greenhouse gas.
Note the red dots in the upper-right, literally running off the chart, and the gray trend line shooting up to a new maximum. Each dot represents a weekly methane sample. The red dots (over the past year) represent tentative data. They keep their data on ice for a year to make sure everything's properly calibrated. But it's practically a formality - the red data points we see are not going to move much.
"They keep their data on ice for a year..."
as long as the ice holds out.
Yes, I read this article and.....another article by Andrew Redkin.....he made statements about some other study that refuted the methane spout study done by the Russians...... I don't see how he can say that the information is irrelavant. The Russian scientists made a point about how large and how many of the "torches " there are.... So, Redkin said the scientists in his study have not found any increase in Methane in the atmosphere.......................yet.......the spewing has just begun...
ALEPH: I remember a documentary that showed the way the explosion of Krakatoa lowered temperatures around the world for over a year. If a volcanic eruption of that magnitude were to happen, could the darkened atmosphere and cooler temperatures offset the methane emissions? I appreciate your speaking candidly on this subject. Truth be told, it puts all our issues about politics and economics into a much flimsier light. In other words, absolute survival may prove the paramount objective sooner than we think.
Thanks for your kind words.
Volcanic emissions contain both CO2 and sulfate aerosols. Sulfates in the stratosphere cool down the earth by blocking sunlight. CO2 in the troposphere warms up the earth by blocking rising heat. The initial effect of a large volcanic eruption is cooling. It can take a couple of years for the sulfates to settle out of the atmosphere, then the warming effect of the much more persistent CO2 takes over, so that the overall effect of volcanic activity is usually some slight warming. Slight, that is, compared to the huge volumes of atmospheric carbon coming from humans. 650 million years ago, the snowball Earth very gradually warmed up again because of CO2 from volcanos.
When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, Hansen predicted cooling for two years, and that's exactly what ensued. So we have the "natural experiment" of volcanic activity establishing the quantity of stratospheric aerosols necessary to cool off the planet. My own nightmare scenario, so foolhardy that it's virtually inevitable, is that when global warming drastically accelerates because of Arctic methane, which may be starting right now, humans will inject massive quantities of SO2 (sulfur dioxide) into the stratosphere. This is known as geoengineering, specifically solar radiation management (SRM), and it will probably be mankind's final fatal mistake.
I agree with you that this makes the Eurozone crisis and Middle East geopolitics seem trivial by comparison. It's seems bizarre to me that so few are even slightly aware of how severe the problem is becoming. The talks in Durban were practically ignored in the corporate media.
Aleph: Thank you for the elaboration. I had the opportunity to spend 2 weeks at a Buddhist monastery in Nepal. People from all over the world gathered for the special meditations. One day we were asked to focus on our own death, as central to the Buddhist philosophy is the idea of impermanence. This includes things like jobs and relationships, and extends to our own mortality. People don't like to focus on this. Even though mortality is inevitable, to the American Dreamer, one may just go on forever. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I preface my comment with this anecdotal information because I think it factors into why so few take the global warming issue seriously. There's the influence of the Koch Brothers & the oil companies in muddying the media waters. Like a confused "jury," many don't feel they can wager a verdict due to the dichotomous-seeming "evidence." Then there are the 55 million Evangelical Christians who have been taught to see the present era AS End Times; and they've also been led to believe that their salvation lies in surrendering to Jesus or God. With this type of programming, there is no onus to change one's lifestyle or consider working diligently to offset the climate damage that's coming at us like a slow motion tsunami. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Most people cling to their comfort zones, and most don't like change when it's thrust upon them. And what was that psychological study that related that human beings are better wired for responding to immediate, as opposed to long-range, danger or similar threats? ------------------------------------------- I recently picked up my half-read copy of "Collapse," by Jared Diamond, and I'm comparing it with a more esoteric take on the world's geologic & archaeological records: "The Atlantis Blueprint" by Colin Wilson. Not long ago I read, "Earth in Upheaval" by Immanuel Velikovsky, and what stunned me most about his book is that no single theory of what brought on past ice ages or massive extinction events holds up to the actual data. There are always anomalies challenging the theories that are most seriously respected. In other words, no one really knows... and I've immersed myself in all this material to try to come to terms with the precarious ecological perch that humanity now rests upon. Of course my belief in reincarnation and the fundamental continuity of the Spiritual Essence helps... but I find myself experiencing grief for all that may soon become eclipsed. I love this planet, and have been privileged to have seen, and experienced, a great many sacred, magnificent places. That's why hearing a few casually dismiss the death of it all makes my blood boil... but why add more to global warming!
Can you elaborate on why you are so certain that geo-engineering measures will be "mankind's final fatal mistake"? You sounded pretty objective and scientific until you made this statement? What is AGW but geo-engineering of an accidental sort?
Okay. To be clear, I said that geoengineering will probably be mankind's final fatal mistake. If I were "so certain" about it, I would have said definitely.
You argument here seems to be: "Since we're already accidentally committing geoengineering, we might as well go whole hog and do it intentionally." This is an instance of what might be called the drunkard's fallacy, similar to the reasoning "Since I've already removed the cork, I might as well finish off the whole bottle." This is not a serious argument.
Carbon removal technology is also called geoengineering, but I would be delighted to see someone come up with a feasible means of capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and putting it somewhere safe. My problem with carbon removal is that I'm not sure it's possible. A recent American Physical Society report backs me up on that.
What I'm really worried about is stratospheric SO2, the most widely advocated form of SRM. The road to Hell, as far as I can see. Among the very serious concerns:
Atmospheric SO2 would compound ocean acidification in two ways: it acidifies the oceans, and it does nothing about ongoing acidification from ever higher CO2 emissions. If humans think that life will be possible on a planet with dead oceans, bereft of photosynthesizing phytoplankton, we've got another thing coming.
Acid rain and other results of the SO2 settling out of the stratosphere would be universal problems.
The technology to physically inject the SO2 into the stratosphere would be far more energy intensive than SRM advocates generally acknowledge, compounding emissions problems underneath the whitened stratosphere. (The sky would be white, by the way.)
Once begun, the impact of ever stopping would be such a great shock to Earth systems as to be unthinkable.
Stratospheric SO2 would massively resume and accelerate the destruction of the ozone layer, exposing the Earth to dangerous solar radiation.
The direct sunlight vegetation is adapted to is qualitatively different from diffuse sunlight, as scattered through a stratospheric layer of SO2. Photosynthesis, the foundation of life on Earth, would be doubly impaired: by both a smaller quantity and a different quality of light.
These are some high points of the specific problem with SO2, not including more general problems with SRM - such as the lack of any means of deciding between people of different regions where SRM will have different regional effects, the impossibility of testing global measures, and the likelihood that SRM would permit and encourage more emissions.
Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering
From the article above:
While Earth's plants and animals have evolved to migrate in response to seasonal environmental changes and to even larger transitions, such as the end of the last ice age, they often are not equipped to keep up with the rapidity of modern climate changes that are currently taking place. Human activities, such as agriculture and urbanisation, are increasingly destroying Earth's natural habitats, and frequently block plants and animals from successfully migrating.
This is a good, terse formulation of the reasons why the sixth extinction is likely to be the most devastating. This has never happened before:
The current rate of warming from human-made forcings is unprecedented. Evolution and migration of plants and animals to adapt to changing climate has never had to run so quickly to keep up.
Humans have erected vast and innumerable barriers to migration, such as freeways and suburbs.
Concurrent with heat and habitat stressors, we continue to bathe the Earth in a stew of super-toxic pesticides - many of the same poisons Carson warned about 50 years ago, or cousins thereof.
A terrible problem for forest ecosystems is that tree pathogens (e.g. bark beetles) are more successful when they can stick around through milder winter months. Huge stretches of forest are turning brown. The area turns from carbon sink to carbon source as all the trees die off.