My previous post gave a summary of March 6th’s What’s Natural? column in the ‘libertarian’ Pacifica Tribune. So I’ll dive straight into this, the “too long, didn’t read” part 2 intended for the student of libertarian deception. Here I dissect the words and offer links to serious sources for the other side of Steele assertions.
Glib misrepresentations, insulting experts and weaving transparently deceptive tales is easy - learning the facts and understanding our biosphere and climate engine that’s what requires some serious self-starter effort. Like the difference between a vandal and a builder.
Jim Steele’s, What’s Natural? Pacifica Tribune | March 6, 2019
(click on the image for better reading)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Since this is a Virtual Debate I drift back and forth between addressing Steele and addressing my readers}
First paragraph, Steele gets into the Heaven’s Gate Suicide Cult. Guess, to fluff up his audience. When Steele tossed in:
Steele: “the Heaven's Gate Cult. Highlv educated members …”
I though I’d investigate, turns out People magazine printed a little bio of the unfortunates. Not to disparage, but educationally they were actually a decidedly middling crowd: https://people.com/archive/cover-story-who-they-were-vol-47-no-14/. Reading it, lonely people looking for simple answers is what came to my mind.
Odious sensationalistic smoke and mirrors, reckon it’s all one's left with when one doesn’t have any facts on their side?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Second paragraph, launches into some heavy handed self promotion.
Steele: “I’ve pointed out how over-hunting and invasive organisms endanger species. I’ve noted island extinctions occurred when humans imported rats, cats and mosquitos that attacked ill-prepared native species.”
Come on Jim, who’s kidding whom, that’s been text book stuff since I was in school, why do you spin it into sounding like original work or something?
Steele: “My research in the Sierra Nevada restored a watershed …”
I think the Sierra Valley Resource Conservation District (sierravalleyrcd.com) might not agree with Jim’s self-serving assessment.
PS. There’s some interesting background to that reclamation project. It’s true Jim Steele was an energetically engaged booster of the project, but he shouldn’t exaggerate his role either. It was a big team effort.
WUWTW - November 5, 2014 “#B Jim Steele's IEEE Presentation: Climate and Drought: Landscape Changes vs CO2, examined”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
at IEEE Jim Steele 11:40: “Well to figure out why my meadow was drying I had to drop the whole global warming thing”
~ ~ ~
It took some looking, since Jim doesn't give details, but he's talking about "Carmen Creek Watershed Restoration Project” But the thing is, there was no reason to single out global warming given that the situation was rather well understood already:
"...The Carmen Creek watershed drains into the Feather River in Sierra Valley, and contains extensive meadow habitat that has been severely degraded through past management activities. Upland and meadow hydrology has been adversely impacted by historic logging, railroad grade construction and livestock grazing.
All meadow stream systems have down cut and stream banks and meadows are actively eroding and the main channel of Carmen Creek and all tributaries are down cut and have active head cuts. Down cutting in streams has lowered meadow water tables and in some cases disconnected meadow/stream hydrology from hill slope hydrology. ..."
This is important because it’s worth pointing out that Steele felt compelled to hype his IEEE story into sounding as though everyone was crying “global warming ruined our meadow” when that was certainly not the case!
Then again, it’s also true that some extremely warm dry seasons inflicted yet more damage to an already damaged ecosystem. A sure sign of things to come in a warming biosphere - something no one should diminish.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“But, in contrast to abundant media hype, I have yet to verify, a single climate change induced extinction.”
Doesn’t sound like Jim has looked very hard. Take a look at the evidence yourself, you’ll notice most all the serious extinction talk includes 'by 2100', or a half century. Get it? It’s in our future, this ball is just staring to get rolling. Besides there are already plenty of horrendous losses being recorded, but Mr. Steele chooses to ignore as much of that as possible. Only the totally exterminated are to be counted in his bubble.
Unfortunately, turning this into a game of keeping score just gives us an excuse to miss the real problems. This is about the health of our biosphere, the one we are leaving for our children and future generations to deal with. It’s about a web of interconnected life and us humans learning to pay attention to what we are doing to it.
Effects of global warming
The signs of global warming are everywhere, and are more complex than just climbing temperatures.
Scientists already have documented these impacts of climate change:
- Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth’s poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice. In Montana's Glacier National Park the number of glaciers has declined to fewer than 30 from more than 150 in 1910.
- Much of this melting ice contributes to sea-level rise. Global sea levels are rising 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, and the rise is occurring at a faster rate in recent years.
- Rising temperatures are affecting wildlife and their habitats. Vanishing ice has challenged species such as the Adélie penguin in Antarctica, where some populations on the western peninsula have collapsed by 90 percent or more.
- As temperatures change, many species are on the move. Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have migrated farther north or to higher, cooler areas.
- Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average. Yet some regions are experiencing more severe drought, increasing the risk of wildfires, lost crops, and drinking water shortages.
- Some species—including mosquitoes, ticks, jellyfish, and crop pests—are thriving. Booming populations of bark beetles that feed on spruce and pine trees, for example, have devastated millions of forested acres in the U.S.
Other effects could take place later this century, if warming continues. These include:
- Sea levels are expected to rise between 10 and 32 inches (26 and 82 centimeters) or higher by the end of the century.
- Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. Floods and droughts will become more common. Large parts of the U.S., for example, face a higher risk of decades-long "megadroughts" by 2100.
- Less freshwater will be available, since glaciers store about three-quarters of the world's freshwater.
- Some diseases will spread, such as mosquito-borne malaria (and the 2016 resurgence of the Zika virus).
- Ecosystems will continue to change: Some species will move farther north or become more successful; others, such as polar bears, won’t be able to adapt and could become extinct.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Impacts on Ecosystems:
- Overview
- Timing of Seasonal Life-Cycle Events
- Range Shifts
- Food Web Disruptions
- Threshold Effects
- Pathogens, Parasites, and Disease
- Extinction Risks
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Change Is Becoming a Top Threat to Biodiversity
Warming rivals habitat loss and land degradation as a threat to global wildlife
By Chelsea Harvey, E&E News on March 28, 2018
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Habitat destruction, pollution and climate change are driving global declines in marine biodiversity
February 2, 2017, British Antarctic Survey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Third paragraph,
“Still some scientists and politicians push a narrative that just a one-degree change in global temperature over a period of 100 years has been deadly.”
What’s natural about disconnecting so profoundly from the physical reality and immensity of our global heat and moisture distribution engine? One degree centigrade is an immense amount of heat energy that’s been injected into our climate engine. It has impacts! Plus, it keeps getting added to.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate change impacting ‘most’ species on Earth, even down to their genomes
Jeremy Hance, April 5, 2017
Three recent studies point to just how broad, bizarre, and potentially devastating climate change is to life on Earth. And we’ve only seen one degree Celsius of warming so far. …
Scheffers is the lead author of a landmark Science study from last year that found that current warming (just one degree Celisus) has already left a discernible mark on 77 of 94 different ecological processes, including species’ genetics, seasonal responses, overall distribution, and even morphology – i.e. physical traits including body size and shape. … (science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671) …
Scheffers and his colleagues’ findings are furthered by a study in Nature Climate Change this February that found that 47 percent of land mammals and 23 percent of birds have already suffered negative impacts form climate change. In all, nearly 700 species in just these two groups are flagging under climate change, according to this research. … (www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n3/full/nclimate3223.html) …
A third study – this one in PLOS Biology – found that more than 450 plants and animals have undergone local extinctions due to climate change. Local extinction, as its name implies, doesn’t mean the species are gone for good, but that they vanish from a portion of their range. … (journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2001104) …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Visualization based on GISTEMP data. by Antti Lipponen
climatecentral Published on Aug 2, 2017
Stop dumbing down people and ignoring critical details such as how much the Arctic Circle has warmed!
Climate Change in the Arctic - National Snow and Ice Data Center
The Arctic region is warmer than it used to be and it continues to get warmer. Over the past 30 years, it has warmed more than any other region on earth. Most scientists agree that Arctic weather and climate are changing because of human-caused climate change.
Arctic warming is causing changes to sea ice, snow cover, and the extent of permafrost in the Arctic. In the first half of 2010, air temperatures in the Arctic were 4° Celsius (7° Fahrenheit) warmer than the 1968 to 1996 reference period, according to NOAA.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
No pause in global warming in the past 100 years
November 13, 2018, Chinese Academy of Sciences
“A new study published in Scientific Reports reveals that global warming has never stopped in the past 100 years, … Hence, the hiatus is merely a decadal balance between global warming and the cooling resulting from anomalous sea surface temperature in the equatorial Pacific.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2018 was the ocean's hottest year. We'll feel it a long time.
The ocean soaks up 93 percent of the heat of climate change. But that heat has a big and long-lasting impact.
BY Alejandra Borunda, JANUARY 16, 2019
Earth’s oceans are warmer now than at any point since humans started systematically tracking their temperatures, according to research published on January 16 in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. The oceans have sopped up more than 90 percent of the heat trapped by human-emitted greenhouse gases, slowing the warming of the atmosphere—but causing many other unwelcome changes to the planet’s climate.
Even a slightly warmer ocean can have dramatic impacts. Other new research shows that warmer oceans make waves stronger. Warmer waters fuel stronger storms, increasing the damage that hurricanes and tropical storms inflict. The added warmth hurts coral habitats and stresses fisheries. Around Antarctica, yet another new study suggests, ice is melting about six times faster than it was in the 1980s—an increase due in part to the warmer waters lapping at the continent’s edge.
“The oceans are the best thermometer we have for the planet,” says Zeke Hausfather, an energy and climate scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who used the ocean heat data published today in an analysis published last week in Science. “We can really see global warming loud and clear in the ocean record.”
~ ~ ~
The Study:
How fast are the oceans warming?
Lijing Cheng, John Abraham, Zeke Hausfather, Kevin E. Trenberth
Science 11 Jan 2019:
Vol. 363, Issue 6423, pp. 128-129
DOI: 10.1126/science.aav7619
What I find so mind-numbing and frightening is how people satisfy themselves with such toddler logic? The Earth is huge, one degree averaged over the entire globe is an enormous amount of heat and it has profound implications for the weather systems we depend upon. (check out the reading list at the end for more info.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fourth and fifth paragraph reads,
Steele writes: The first highly publicized climate "tragedy" was Camille Parmesan's claim that global warming had caused population extinctions that pushed Califomia's Checker-spot butterfly's range northward and upward. Such a catastrophic assertion attracted the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). So, Parmesan became one of just 4 biologists on the IPCC in 2001. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ website also hyped Parmesan as a climate change heroine. In contrast, every other butterfly researcher* argues it was California’s growing sprawl and resulting landscape changes that decimated the Checkerspot’s prime habitat.
Hoping to separate landscape changes from climate change, I tried to replicate Parmesan’s iconic study. But she never published her data. In a gross violation of scientific process, she refused to share her data. We battled, but it was finally admitted many populations that she had claimed had been extirpated by climate change, are not thriving. Unfortunately, such good news was never publicized. That was my first taste of dishonest climate fear-mongering.
Why are we not allowed to demand that Mr. Steele live up to the ethical standards he expects of others? We could start with a bit less melodrama.
Steele tells us Dr. Parmesan was in gross violation of scientific standards for not sharing her hard won data with him. Why? What professional standard was she breaking?
Jim Steele is no lepidopterist, he has no standing, education nor professional publication record. The closest he gets is having a reputation for being a good amateur bird watcher. Unfortunately he often projects himself to be smarter than most experts.
One doesn’t confront a serious scientists and demand notes and data as though one were a self-appointed prosecutor. Jim’s own language and track record made it clear that he was not acting in Good Faith.
For example the naivety of his contention that he wanted to “replicate” her study. Jim, we aren’t working at a chemistry bench, these are complex evolving landscapes where one year isn’t the same as the next. Disputing, or endorsing, her study required a totally different approach, which in fact she addresses in that very paper, had you taken the time to read it in good-faith.*
Arrogance, hostility, along with an inability to process the words being spoken to him because of his own self-certain disregard for facts or honesty. It’s no wonder Dr. Parmesan declined to humor him.
For what it’s worth, I know from personal experience through my correspondences with many scientists whom Mr. Steele has dealt with over the past years, that he has left a handful feeling rather mistreated.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As for Dr. Parmesan’s work, you simply need to read it yourself to discover the truth. I for one don’t find any “catastrophe assertions,” no “climate fear mongering.” Take a look:
None of the hysteria that Steele mesmerizes us with. She simply explains the data and how she collected it, along with some concise observations and thoughts for further research.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate and Species Range
Camille Parmesan - National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California at Santa Barbara
Nature - Volume 382, Page 765, 766 - August 29, 1996
“Although a predicted result of climate warming is an increased extinction rate at the very lowest elevations, no such trend appeared in the data. …, Recent human destruction of butterfly habitat and extirpation of populations could, by increasing isolation reduce recolonization rates and inflate net extinction rates even in undegraded habitats. … , suggest climate change as the cause of the observed range shift.
* However, conclusive evidence for or against the existence of the predicted biological effects of climate change will come, not from attempts to analyze all possible confounding variable in single studies like this one, but from replication of this type of study with additional taxa in other regions. Until this has been done the evidence presented here provides the clearest indication to date that global climate warming is already influencing species’ distribution.
~ ~ ~
“Fingerprints” of Climate Change pp 57-76 |
Parmesan C. (2001) Detection of range shifts: General methodological issues and case studies of butterflies. In: Walther GR., Burga C.A., Edwards P.J. (eds) “Fingerprints” of Climate Change. Springer, Boston, MA
~ ~ ~
(Essay) Detection at Multiple Levels: Edith's Checkerspot Butterfly and Climate Change
By Camille Parmesan, University of Texas, Austin
The Quino Checkerspot: Endangered Species and Climate Change
The Quino checkerspot (E. editha quino) is a federally listed endangered subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot. Although habitat destruction is the primary cause of its decline, climate change poses problems for its recovery. Quino checkerspot populations along the southernmost boundary (in Mexico) are at the greatest risk from continuing warming and drying climate trends.
Unfortunately, these are also the best remaining habitats with the lowest degree of threat from development. By contrast, most Quino habitat has been destroyed by development in the Los Angeles–San Diego corridor. The case of the Quino checkerspot has resulted in the first habitat recovery plan to list climate change not only as a current threat, but also as a factor that should be considered in reserve design and recovery management (Anderson et al. 2001).
~ ~ ~
Short-term success but long-term vulnerability?
Camille Parmesan • Alison Williams-Anderson • Matthew Moskwik • Alexander S. Mikheyev • Michael C. Singer
Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
~ ~ ~
May 09, 2018
Rapid Evolution Fails to Save Butterflies from Extinction in Face of Human-Induced Change
AUSTIN, Texas — New research confirms that wild species can adapt quickly to human-induced changes, but also shows how such adaptation can cause those species to be caught in deadly “eco-evolutionary traps” when humans introduce new resources in the environment and then quickly take them away.
The study, by researchers from the University of Plymouth and The University of Texas at Austin, was released May 9 in Nature and will be the journal’s cover story on May 10.
“We predicted this extinction in our Nature paper in 1993, where we said that, by evolving to be dependent upon a particular type of human land management, the butterflies were rendering themselves vulnerable to rapid changes in that management that could occur faster than the butterflies could evolve,” said lead author Michael Singer, a professor at the University of Plymouth. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sixth paragraph reads,
For this paragraph Steele puts on his Polar Bear Expert Hat. ...
“In 2010 so-called experts suggested polar bear populations were declining, … Today no populations are in decline.”
“my 2012 analyses found polar bear populations were increasing.”
Steele’s 2012 “analysis” of what? Where’s his reference for this “analysis” paper? ‘No’ populations in decline. Seriously?
Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing, In Fact Booming?
Answered by Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years.
Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren't their populations increasing: in fact, booming?
A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*
One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were . . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Good News! We Have Found a Thriving Polar Bear Population Somewhere on Our Planet
Michelle Starr | NOV 15, 2018
… In fact, biologists have found that a previously unstudied population of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Chukchi Sea, between Alaska and Russia, is actually thriving.
Before you crack open the champagne however, bear in mind that these animals aren't completely free of threat. …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The truth about polar bears
By Zac Unger | December 1, 2012
Depending on whom you ask, the North’s sentinel species is either on the edge of extinction or an environmental success story. An in-depth look at the complicated, contradictory and controversial science behind the sound bites. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seventh paragraph,
“A few scientists hyped penguins were “marching to extinction (by 2100!) ” {Steele always leaves out that part.}
Read that paragraph and ask yourself why is Steele so dependent on that display of condescension and always assuming the worst of scientists’ intentions? Then there’s that melodramatic gloss over really complex dynamic situations. That’s theater, done for effect and salesmanship.
To understand what’s going on in the Antarctic you must first accept that it’s complicated and it requires some good faith homework, and it doesn’t fit into sound bits. You need to be willing to absorb expert information and learn from it:
Are Emperor Penguins Marching to Extinction?
... and other recent research findings by WHOI scientists
By Juli Berwald, Matt Villano :: online September 2, 2009
The study, published Jan. 26, 2009, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that if climate change continues to melt sea ice at the rates published in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, the median population size of the Terre Adelie penguin colony likely would shrink from its present size of 3,000 to only 400 breeding pairs by the end of the century. What’s more, the researchers calculated a 40 to 80 percent probability that the population would drastically decline (by 95 percent or more) and threaten it with extinction. …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Decline and Fall of the Emperor Penguin?
Climate Change and Shrinking Ice Threaten Polar Birds
By David Levin :: published online November 21, 2013 : In print Vol. 50, No. 2, Fall 2013
…The decline of those emperor penguins (in Terre Adélie in East Antarctica) is likely connected to a simultaneous decline in Antarctic sea ice resulting from warming temperatures in the region, said Stephanie Jenouvrier, WHOI biologist and lead author of the study.
Unlike other seabirds, emperor penguins breed and raise their young almost exclusively on sea ice. If that ice breaks up and disappears early in the breeding season, massive breeding failure may occur, she said. “As it is, there’s a huge mortality rate just at the breeding stages of penguins’ life cycle, because only 50 percent of chicks survive to the end of the breeding season, and then only half of those fledglings survive until the next year.”
Disappearing sea ice may also affect the penguins’ food source. The birds feed primarily on fish, squid, and krill, a shrimplike animal, which in turn feeds on tiny zooplankton, phytoplankton, and algae that grows on the underside of the ice. If the ice goes, Jenouvrier said, so too will the plankton, causing a ripple effect through the food web that may starve the various species that penguins rely on as prey. …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Complicated Calculus of Counting Emperor Penguins
Scientists journey to the icy bottom of the Earth to see if satellite imagery can determine how many Emperor penguins are left in the world
By Joan Meiners | Smithsonian.com | January 23, 2019
Antarctica is not for the faint of heart. For a hundred years, explorers and biologists have been mesmerized by its brutality. It makes sense, then, that we would be captivated by the only species that attempts to breed through the continent’s unforgiving winters. We've followed the marches, triumphs and egg breakthroughs of the Cape Crozier Emperor penguin colony on the silver screen.
For ten years our satellites have snapped photos of the 53 other known colonies, when cloudless days and orbits align. Now, an international effort is bundling up to see whether these images from space can tell us, for the first time, how many Emperor penguins are left in the world. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eighth paragraph,
“Elsewhere a few scientists argued global warming was pushing adorable rabbit-like pikas off mountain tops into extinction throughout the western USA.”
This is theater, science by sarcasm and melodrama. This isn’t for anyone that wants to learn anything about the nature of pikas or how they are faring in an environment that’s definitely changing on them.
Pikas Disappearing from Parts of the West Due to Climate Change
Release Date: AUGUST 25, 2016
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Apparent climate-mediated loss and fragmentation of core habitat of the American pika in the Northern Sierra Nevada, California, USA
J. A. E. Stewart, D. H. Wright, K. A. Heckman | August 30, 2017
… Despite an abundance of suitable rocky habitat climate warming appears to have precipitated their demise. Weather station data reveal a 1.9°C rise in local temperature and a significant decline in snowpack over the period of record, 1910–2015, pushing pika habitat into increasingly tenuous climate conditions during the period of extirpation.
This is among the first accounts of an apparently climate-mediated, modern extirpation of a species from an interior portion of its geographic distribution, resulting in habitat fragmentation, and is the largest area yet reported for a modern-era pika extirpation. Our finding provides empirical support to model projections, indicating that even core areas of species habitat are vulnerable to climate change within a timeframe of decades.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Change Responsible for Extinction of Pikas in Tahoe
BY Abbie Barronian | September 15, 2017
According to a recently published study conducted in the North Lake Tahoe area, pikas have disappeared from their long-held homes in the scree fields of the Sierra Nevadas. Since 1910, the Lake Tahoe area has seen a 1.9°C rise in local temperature and a significant decline in snowpack, dramatically shrinking pika habitat. Biologist Joseph Stewart spent the last six years studying the impact of these changes in local climate on pika species. …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fuzzy Pikas Adapt to Climate Change at Different Rates
An elusive mix of factors may influence whether a species can survive in changing landscapes
- By Adam Aton, ClimateWire on August 3, 2017
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fuzzy-pikas-adapt-to-climate-change-at-different-rates/
A small, fuzzy creature might help researchers reimagine conservation in the age of rapidly changing environments.
Experts expect climate change to cause more endangered species to go extinct while bringing others to the brink. Most species slowly try to adapt — often by changing the timing of major life events, like reproduction. They can also alter migration and feeding habits.
Sometimes that works. But the same species can show great adaptive potential in some places while dying out elsewhere, according to a paper published this week in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
P.S.
Climate Change Has Already Harmed Almost Half of All Mammals
Researchers found the range of wildlife now affected by climate change is broad, and includes animals on every continent
- By Scott Waldman, ClimateWire on February 15, 2017
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-has-already-harmed-almost-half-of-all-mammals/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ninth paragraph,
“In 1980 climate scientists claimed children would no longer know what snow is. …”
Actually it was one scientist. So here we see how it’s done, cherry pick some rash comment someone made off hand, not in any science paper, mind you - and then endlessly beat the public over the head with it.
A statistical expert’s perspective:
Snow -
Posted on March 5, 2011 | 53 Comments
It wasn’t that long ago, back in 2000, that David Viner of the Climate Research Unit stated that winter snowfall in England will become “a very rare and exciting event”. He added that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” His comments came on the heels of several very low-snow winters in England. …
atmospheric water vapor - (click on image)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Change: Arctic warming pushes winter weather further south
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Regarding the IPCC and snow, check it out:
4: Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tenth paragraph,
“If we truly care about nature, rising CO2 is not the problem.”
“Detrimental changes to our ecosystems are driven by over hunting, invasive species and loss of habitat.”
Interestingly, this made me think of something Dr. Parmesan wrote:
There is strong agreement amongst conservation biologists that to minimize loss of biodiversity in the face of rapid climate change we need to promote climate-smart, landscape-level habitat conservation and restoration (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004; Lawler 2009; Mawdsley et al. 2009; Heller and Zavaleta 2009; Dawson et al. 2011; Gillson et al. 2013). The case of the Quino checkerspot, illustrated here, demonstrates that even species thought to be well understood can respond adaptively in ways that surprise experts. …
The fundamental conservation message from this example is that we need to increase connectivity among habitats and protected areas and increase species’ in situ resistance and resilience to climate change by improving the health of populations, species, and ecosystems.
Steele: “For several decades, bogus catastrophic climate-change claims have come and gone.”
Here’s that libertarian diversion again. Jim, why give a damned about claims splashed across media headlines?
We should care about understanding the science and honestly learning about the observations. Steele’s libertarian form of science by insult and rhetoric sucks. It’s nothing less than malicious intellectual vandalism with destructive real world consequences.
Below I offer a short reading list about some down to Earth scientific fundamentals, finishing with a look at how major climate models have actually faired this past half century.
I want to be clear, despite his hysterical protestations I don’t have anything against Steele personally, actually couldn’t give a flying fig. I’d just as soon not deal with him if truth be known.
Problem is those malicious deceptions and monster lies and slander that streams from his keyboard, his calumny against serious science’s findings and on decent professionals, that I take the deepest moral umbrage at, that’s what drives this time consuming pain in my arse project.
But someone’s gotta do it, lordie knows the scientists are too busy doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. It's a crying shame there aren't more citizens standing up for scientists. : - |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We The People of the United States have a moral, ethical right - along with a pragmatic need - to learn what scientists have learned about this planet's biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire.
We should not tolerate serious scientists constantly being drown out by amoral, ruthless and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless GOP PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Systems Science, what is it?
Why is it important to appreciate?
Stephen Schneider: Climate Science and Media Distortion
Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 -- July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s not a prediction, it’s an observation!
Hydrological Cycle is the Climate Cycle
Excerpt of Peter Gleick's talk at the 2018 Saint Louis Climate Summit.
You can watch the full 35 minutes presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivLmV...
You can watch the full 35 minutes presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivLmV...
Further reading:
Atmospheric Moisture Increase
Last updated December 4, 2018
A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture—about 7 percent more per 1.8°F (1°C) of warming—and scientists have already observed a significant increase in atmospheric moisture due to the air’s ability to hold more moisture as it warms.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Summary of the Water Cycle
The Water Cycle: Water Storage in the Atmosphere
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Where's the water?
The National Center for Atmospheric Research
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Atmospheric Moisture Measurements Explain Increases in Tropical Rainfall Extremes
Roderick, T. P., Wasko, C., & Sharma, A.
Geophysical Research Letters , 2019
Anthropogenic climate change is increasing extreme rainfall as a result of an increased water-holding capacity of the atmosphere due to higher temperatures.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
NASA | November 17, 2019
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Contemporary Climate Change as Seen Through Measurements
Published on Mar 17, 2016
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
On a short summary of the Dessler 2013
PNAS Paper, Stratospheric water vapor feedback, 2013
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier
July 28, 2014, University of Miami
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate models confirm more moisture in atmosphere attributed to humans
August 10, 2009, Provided by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
Ethan Siegel | March 15, 2017 | forbes.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction - Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie
Dana Nuccitelli, June 25, 2018
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
CarbonBrief | October 5,2017
No comments:
Post a Comment