Too late to stop global warming by cutting emissions: Scientists argue for adaption policies

Oct 17, 2012

Governments and institutions should focus on developing adaption policies to address and mitigate against the negative impact of global warming, rather than putting the emphasis on carbon trading and capping greenhouse-gas emissions, argue Johannesburg-based Wits University geoscientist Dr Jasper Knight and Dr Stephan Harrison from the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

"At present, governments' attempts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon cap-and-trade schemes and to promote renewable and are prob¬ably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming," the scientists write in a paper published online in the scientific journal, Nature Climate Change, on Monday, 14 October 2012.

The paper, entitled The on terrestrial Earth surface systems, is published in the Perspective section of Nature Climate Change and argues that much less attention is paid by policymakers to monitor, model and manage the impacts of climate change on the dynamics of Earth surface systems, including glaciers, rivers, mountains and coasts. "This is a critical omis¬sion, as Earth surface systems provide water and soil resources, sustain and strongly influence biogeochemical climate feedbacks in ways that are as yet uncertain," the scientists write.

Knight and Harrison want governments to focus more on adaption policies because future impacts of global warming on land-surface stability and the sediment fluxes associated with , river down-cutting and are relevant to sustainability, biodiversity and food security. Monitoring and modelling soil erosion loss, for example, are also means by which to examine problems of carbon and nutri¬ent fluxes, lake eutrophication, pollutant and coliform dispersal, river siltation and other issues. An Earth-systems approach can actively inform on these cognate areas of environmental policy and planning.

According to the scientists, Earth surface systems' sensitivity to climate forcing is still poorly understood. Measuring this geomorphological sensi¬tivity will identify those systems and environments that are most vulnerable to climatic disturbance, and will enable policymakers and managers to prioritise action in these areas.

"This is particularly the case in coastal environments, where rocky and sandy coastlines will yield very different responses to climate forcing, and where coastal-zone management plans are usually based on past rather than future climatic patterns," they argue.

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on special report on extreme events and disasters and the forthcoming fifth assessment report, due 2013, include more explicit statements of the role of Earth surface systems in responding to and influencing climate forcing.

"However, monitoring of the response of these systems to climate forcing requires decadal-scale data sets of instrumented basins and under different climatic regimes worldwide. This will require a con-siderable international science effort as well as commitment from national governments," Knight and Harrison urge.

Explore further: New solutions needed to recycle fracking water

More information: www.nature.com/nclimate/journa… ll/nclimate1660.html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Biodiversity and climate change - from bad to worse

Dec 08, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A major new scientific review, involving more than 30 scientists from Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands sets out our current knowledge of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity ...

A new dawn for climate prediction

Jul 18, 2007

Scientists must develop new, more adaptive approaches to predicting and monitoring climate, say climate modellers from the University of Exeter. In a 'perspectives' article published in leading journal Science, Professor Peter ...

Climate change goes underground

Aug 22, 2007

Climate change, a recent “hot topic” when studying the atmosphere, oceans, and Earth’s surface; however, the study of another important factor to this global phenomenon is still very much “underground.” ...

Recommended for you

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

8 hours ago

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

9 hours ago

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 84

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (16) Oct 17, 2012
I cannot overstate how much I agree with the authers of this paper. Not with standing the ever shriller and erratic claims of an ever smaller minority of people, the fact of global warming is apon us.

Even if, by some miracle or catastrophe, emissions of greenhouse gasses were to drop to 0 tomorrow, it will be thousands or 10s of thousands of years before the excess already in our atmosphere has been depleted enough to return us to the so called natural state.
It is high time we start looking for ways to manage the changes that are coming.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2012
Monitor, model and manage... but all he's advocating is 'monitor'.
Don't get me wrong: We need all the data we can get in order to survive this crisis. But: monitoring (and modeling) alone doesn't change anything. 'Managing' alone also won't change much (it will just be a muddling along until the change becomes unmanageable)

This will require a con-siderable international science effort as well as commitment from national governments,

What is really comes down to is effort by the people. Every individual. Conserve, rethink priorities, go for sustainable (instead of the small, quick payoff with big, future debt), vote responsibly....

...just start living with the planet instead of living off of it until it's worn down.
mountain_team_guy
3.2 / 5 (15) Oct 17, 2012
Finally, someone is being sensible. I never before read that the AGW debate had moved beyond whether or not AGW was real and ridiculous remedies. Fossil fuels are going to be used, period. There's no solution to global population growth. The climate is going to change regardless of of what anybody does or doesn't do. So, if someone wants to talk about how to manage and adapt to the change, kudos for maturity and realism.
Tausch
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2012
For humans the nature state is to adapt to Nature.
Adapting a Nature to humans is unnatural.
Tausch
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2012
For humans the natural state is to adapt to Nature.
Adapting a Nature to humans is unnatural.

English is fun - once you get the hang of it.
Sorry for the typo.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2012
Adapting a Nature to humans is unnatural

Do you wear clothes? Live in a house? Use a heater? How about a car? An umbrella? An oven? Glasses? ...

Humans do nothing BUT adapt nature to themselves.

For humans the nature state is to adapt to Nature.

Humans are like any other lifeform. They adapt until they find an environment which changes too fast (or in a direction which they cannot adapt to). Then they go extinct.

We have come to realize the we DO change the environment in a way that isn't good for us...and that we may even be able to stop taking these actions which aren't good for us in the long run.

Putting a tiny bit of effort into not going extinct seems worthwhile to me.
Tausch
1.9 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2012
All life forms go extinct.
Far be it from me not to prolong the effort.
Tausch
2 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2012
To survive. ;)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2012
All life forms go extinct.

So? It may be worthwhile to try and break that trend.

Humans have the ability of empathy (well animals have that, too). But we also have the ability of foresight (which some animals have too, but not to our extent apparently)

Couple the two and it's sensible to not just live as if there was no tomorrow but live as if there was - and as if there should be for future generations.
Tausch
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2012
Yes. I am curious too. A enduring form that survives what we muddy.
And undo or correct the changes we brought upon the rest of life.
rubberman
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2012
The problem with forsight and human nature is that we tend to view it as though it is a movie that only has the potential of coming true, instead of the logical outcome of a series of observed events.

"Humans have the ability of empathy (well animals have that, too). But we also have the ability of foresight (which some animals have too, but not to our extent apparently". -AP

For every "what if?" science asks, there's always someone firing back with "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it". There has been no globally collective attempt at mitigation since CO2 was first reported and acknowledged as a potential threat.
Tausch
2 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2012
@zz5555
"I'm something of an energy hog,..."
You hording all our resources again?
Thks for the ratings. Are you sorry you can't rank lower than one? ;-)
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (30) Oct 17, 2012
This article/study is simply another lame scare tactic funded by enviro-nazis, conducted by enviro-nazis, and (sadly) accepted as gospel by other enviro-nazis.

To the betterment of the world, each passing day brings a new low in the credibility of radical environmentalism and its' minions. Funny thing is - the enviro-nazis are doing all the hard work and bringing the shame and discredit on themselves.

However, I like the idea of shelving the carbon trading scam(s). I do believe that's the first sensible word I've ever heard come from the mouth of a radical environmentalist!
rubberman
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 17, 2012
This comment from ScooterG is laden with the same lame ass opinion that he cuts and pastes regarding every article remotely connected to climate change.

To the betterment of the world, education and survival of the fittest mean there will be less astoundingly ignorant people who behave this way. Funny thing is - they are too ignorant to know that they brought this on themselves .

However, I also like the idea of shelving the carbon trading scam(s). I do believe that's the first sensible word I've ever heard come from the mouth of ScooterG.
Mike_Syzygy
4.3 / 5 (15) Oct 17, 2012
I do believe that's the first sensible word I've ever heard come from the mouth of a radical environmentalist!


Heh. If 5% of a population is absolutely positive that water is not wet, does that make the pro-wet water crowd hydronazis?

You have the roles reversed, it is not the believers in GW that are twisting the truth. I believe the anti-GW crowd are the ones flinging the mud and insults, while the rest of the world accepts GW as self-evident and proven fact.

"The avalanche has begun, it is too late for the pebbles to vote."
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (19) Oct 17, 2012
Mike science is not about belief, it's about evidence and rigorous testing of hypotheses. If you only accept the evidence that supports your hypotheses then that is religion. Those who present evidence that disprove the current hypothesis have been vilified publicly by the overly religious as deniers. They are not anti-GW ( no one is) . They are merely saying we need to revise the original hypotheses.
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (25) Oct 17, 2012
Global warming ended 16 years ago.

http://earthsky.o...ears-ago

Howhot
4.1 / 5 (18) Oct 18, 2012
The solution is to motivate people about the urgency of this problem. That is the only way to put pressure on the governments that can effect change, and effect change in industries that are the major polluters.

Shootist, your part of the problem; as are all the deniers that lurk here. If you don't recognize that man-made-global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt faster than ever in history, then your in need of the new Al Gore re-education camps for the environmentally insensitive.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2012
Global warming ended 16 years ago.

http://earthsky.o...ears-ago


Shooty,

No, it didn't

https://docs.goog...it?pli=1

Latest HADCRUT4 update. Land/Sea temps in both hemispheres continue to increase.

Therefore, warming hasn't stopped.

Now, why don't you go Rochambeau ubavontoob for enticing you down the garden path on that particular bit of pseudoscientific fabrication.

Thanks to VendicarD for the link --I knew it would only be a matter of hours before an opportunity arose to deploy it.


gregor1
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 18, 2012
The history you talk of goes back to 1980 when the satellite record starts and much of Antactica is cooling (except for the Antarctic peninsula ). I believe you know this and are deliberately hiding this uncertainty to further your cause. You don't seem to have twigged that we all have the Internet and can check your assertions. The lack of a mention in the Presidential debates is evidence that your battle is being lost. Hyperbole without evidence will not work - or perhaps as a true believer you are an evidence denier
VendicarD
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 18, 2012
"Global warming ended 16 years ago. " - Shootist

The link that Shootist posted to support his assertion claims the exact opposite.

The title is...

"UK Met Office responds: It's still getting warmer"

Here is a graphic from the article....

http://en.es-stat...x214.jpg

zen1951
3.8 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2012
Just want to say its never to late but also its now time to stop taking from mother earth and start putting back .And for populations to start reducing.All rockets and satalites that are up in the atmospher must behaving a massive efect on the planet ripping through the Ozone time to facts not mere thoughts And to say nothing of the amount fo Money that in my eyes is wasted sending these objects up there and yes i do understand part of what is going on is natural and evolutions is take part in global warming BUT MAN IS THE CONTENDER FOR THE BULK OF THE DAMAGE
Lantern5
1.3 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2012
It would be a shame not to find more solutions to the problem of climate change would be convenient an international competition of ideas to solve that problem. I have a good idea to reduce the impact of global warming that is cheap.
Also I have an idea on how to protect a powerful solar flare. The sun became too strong activity and could plunge suddenly a deadly blaze. We should have a system ready to protect us if solar observation satellites detected a solar mass ejection be deadly. Contests of ideas to solve these problems are vital to the survival of humanity.
_traw_at
5 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2012
Salmon Colonizing the High Arctic: Quiet Evidence Of Global Warming.

"A decade ago, however, the subsistence fishermen who set nets for Arctic char at river mouths around Sachs Harbour pulled in some interesting fish. There, thrashing in the nets with the brilliantly colored char they'd come to expect, where eight beautiful silver and green fish of a kind they'd never seen before. The fish were later identified as sockeye and pink salmon – and they were sexually mature.

The Pacific salmon shouldn't have been there, searching for a river to spawn in on the usually frozen coast of Banks Island, but they were and that catch, as it turns out, is a far from isolated event in the rapidly changing Arctic."

http://ariverneve...-salmon/

_traw_at
5 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2012
These are Pacific salmon species, which are not generally found in the Arctic to any extent. Or weren't...

Another article on this subject:

http://www.taiga....187.html
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 18, 2012
After 30 years wasted of trying to take over the world economies on false pretenses, 'experts' acknowledge what humans did in the past, adapt, is the only course of action.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2012
After 30 years wasted of trying to take over the world economies on false pretenses, 'experts' acknowledge what humans did in the past, adapt, is the only course of action.


First of all, do you assume all 7 billion inhabitants of the planet will be able to adapt?

Secondly, do you believe adaptation will be less of an economic burden than mitigation?

Lastly, does this mean that you have accepted the science?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (14) Oct 18, 2012
do you assume all 7 billion inhabitants of the planet will be able to adapt?

Why not? They are adapting every day to onerous govt rules, weather, climate, etc.
Freer more prosperous people will have even more opportunities to adapt.
accepted the science?

What science? We were told in the 70s the next ice age was imminent and 10 years later all the ice was going to melt.
Climate has been changing for thousands of years and millions of people have adapted to it. What's new?
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2012
"What science? We were told in the 70s the next ice age was imminent and 10 years later all the ice was going to melt."

A perfect example of rationality dictating a change of opinion.

"Why not? They are adapting every day to onerous govt rules, weather, climate, etc.
Freer more prosperous people will have even more opportunities to adapt"

So essentially you're OK and good luck to everyone not fortunate enough to have been born in your country.

"Climate has been changing for thousands of years and millions of people have adapted to it. What's new?"

Can you even fathom the variables associated with over half of the earths people trying to adapt to conditions in the most likely climate scenario of the next 50 years? Let alone a worst case or beyond? It won't happen quietly, peacfully, or in the spirit of free market competition. If I'm wrong I'll be 90 but I'll still buy you a steak dinner, if I'm correct we can meet in habitable zone 12 for grubs and kale.

zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2012
@zz5555
"I'm something of an energy hog,..."
You hording all our resources again?


Nope. I make my own electricity. But don't worry - there's enough sun for everybody. ;)

Thks for the ratings. Are you sorry you can't rank lower than one? ;-)


Sometimes I am. Sometimes there's a great deal of silliness in these comments.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Oct 18, 2012
It won't happen quietly, peacfully,

It will IFF the people have the liberty and economic freedom to do so.
Socialist states are having problems now coping with their dependent classes as they run out of other people's money.
Why are socialist so afraid of freeing people from the shackles of the state?
That's the dilemma of centrally planned, socialist economies. They can't adapt, but they must adapt to survive.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (13) Oct 18, 2012
"Price increases for corn—a direct result of the U.S. biofuels mandate—added $11.6 billion in costs for countries importing the food staple between 2006 and 2011

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

How socialist policies hurt the poor.
Of course the poorer countries are poor because of socialism and US socialist policies hurt them even more.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Oct 20, 2012

What science? We were told in the 70s the next ice age was imminent and 10 years later all the ice was going to melt.

Same myth turning up again -From....http://en.wikiped..._cooling
"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century."

But then I expect you don't accept Wiki as being impartial I suppose?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 20, 2012
After 30 years wasted of trying to take over the world economies on false pretenses, 'experts' acknowledge what humans did in the past, adapt, is the only course of action.


Laughable! You've just admitted that you are aware that global warming is happening. and now move to critisizing those who have been trying to do something about it for the last 30 years?

What an imbecile.

It is fools like you that have left us in the position where we have no choice but to find ways to adapt. You are a true example of the shallow end of the gene pool.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (16) Oct 20, 2012
been trying to do something about it

Trouble is the AGWites had to lie to try and force the world into a more socialist economy.
Had there been some honesty on the part of the science community, there may have been a bit more prosperity (and less wasted efforts on biofuels, wind, solar, etc.) enabling all to more easily adapt, if needed.
But no, the AGWites used the 'crisis' to promote more govt control of the world economies, which are now collapsing because they are running out of OPM.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (10) Oct 20, 2012
We should adapt to fossil fuel crisis anyway: the high prices of oil would make the geopolitical world too unstable, which is greater risk, than some global warming. You can face the global warming, but you cannot face the global nuclear war: it's too fast for everyone. And now after fifty years we are pretty close to it again... The only solution is to implement the effective replacement for fossil fuels, for oil in particular. Can we justify the fact, that we have no peer-reviewed study of nickel fusion during last twenty years under such a situation? Hardly so: the behavior of the human society is schizophrenic and catatonic: we are facing our destiny numbly with no organized action at all. We know about all these connections of wars and poverty and we are doing nothing against it. Everyone is just doing his own job, like if nothing could ever happen.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 20, 2012
Trouble is the AGWites had to lie to try and force the world into a more socialist economy.

You're really being one massively confused/paranoid bein, aren't you? What has AWG sciemce got to do with socialism? Socialism is governments. Science is science.
And the science of ALL countries (socialist or capitalist or whatever elose) says AGW is a problem we have to deal with. And unfortunately it's a global problem with global sources - meaning that we have to deal with it in a global manner.

Who gives a flying about economics when survival is at stake? You're still living in some kind of dream world where money means anything when it comes to crises on this scale. As if "it costs too much - let's ignore it instead" were an option.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 20, 2012
Trouble is the AGWites had to lie to try and force the world into a more socialist economy.


What a load of crap.

Had there been some honesty on the part of the science community, there may have been a bit more prosperity (and less wasted efforts on biofuels, wind, solar, etc.) enabling all to more easily adapt, if needed.


Your world view is so twisted, I surprised you can read what's on the computer you're typing on. A very few members of the scientific community took "alarmist" stances, and in all cases, it was done to try and wake up the brain dead political world.

The biofuels, wind, solar etc that you seem to hold such distain for ARE adaption strategies you moron.

But no, the AGWites used the 'crisis' to promote more govt control of the world economies, which are now collapsing because they are running out of OPM.


Laughable.
_traw_at
5 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2012
Saudi Arabia has revealed plans to switch to 100% renewable energy. Other oil-producing Middle East and North African nations have set out on similar paths. Morocco's current target is to obtain at least 45% renewable energy. One of the Goals of the North African nations is to have a large surplus of R.E. power in order to supply many gigawatts of electricity to Europe.

If renewable energy is so expensive, why are these nations committing themselves to this path? Maybe they know they don't have the reserves they thought they did? Or the want to conserve the petroleum for other uses?

http://www.guardi...ergy-oil

It's no accident that IRENA, The International Renewable Energy Association, is headquartered in Abu Dhabi:
http://www.irena....;mnu=Pri

150 Renewable Energy project in the M.E.:
http://www.bloomb...ort.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
What a load of crap.


"Enron was very big on Kyoto. Company correspondence asserted it would "do more to promote Enron's business" than any other single regulation"
"signed by Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay (and a few other bigwigs), asking President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue. "
http://www.cato.o...-warming

And the attempts to hide the hockey stick,MWP and the emails.

AGW is a load of crap.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2012
Saudi Arabia has revealed plans to switch to 100% renewable energy.

What is renewable?
One expense for solar is the sun sets every day.
Unless they plan on satellites and microwave transmission. How expensive?
One of the Arab states is buying a nuclear reactor from Korea.
And the AGWite been more worried about adapting they would have immediately supported nuclear energy, natural gas and possibly using nuclear energy to create hydrogen. But no, they had to create a political organization and created a false market for carbon so Al Gore could get rich.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2012
Socialism is governments. Science is science.

Wow, how naive!
IPCC is a polical organization.
Who funds most science? Governments.
See my previous post about how Eron trying to get Clinton to trash scientists who did not support AGW.
And then you can read up on Hyak and Sowell.
"The Intellectuals and Socialism, by F.A. Hayek"
"Intellectuals and Society" http://www.nation...s-sowell
"How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable — or even expert — within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation."
http://www.nation...s-sowell
Too bad the AGWites and Ehrlich disciples didn't stick to science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
"Thomas Sowell believes that self-proclaimed intellectuals push global warming because it provides them with a reason to be needed by the public as well as huge government grants!"
http://epaabuse.c...warming/

""Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth." -- Ken Schoolland"

""I wish that some way could be found to add up all the staggering costs imposed on millions of ordinary people, just so a relative handful of self-righteous environmental cultists can go around feeling puffed up with themselves." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell
"
http://freedomkey...uals.htm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
@traw:

"The country's four main grid operators said Monday that households will from January see a nearly 50 percent rise in the tax they pay to finance the switchover—from €3.6 cents to €5.3 cents ($6.7 cents) per kilowatt hour. A typical family of four will pay about €250 ($324) per year under the tariff, including a sales tax.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"
Not expensive?
Eric_B
4.4 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2012
KISS MY OZONE HOLE!!!

Remember the Ozone Hole? All you right wing sycophant corporate slaves parroted your petrochem masters and cried, "if we do anything it's against freedom and 'free' market and the masters will make us slaves suffer by cutting jobs!!!"

Well, you were wrong then and you are wrong now. CFC's were banned and the economy didn't collapse. We use less-damaging products now.

We could put a million people to work and boost the economy and deprive Saudi Arabia of our money by funding a massive energy efficiency, made in America, infrastructure and hardware upgrade process.
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2012
What science? We were told in the 70s...


The key here are the words "What science?".

To somehow link the words "AGW" and "science" together only lends credence to an ongoing myth. AGW is not science, but rather (as you've correctly stated) socialistic political activism.

Real scientists would like nothing more than to get the AGW monkey off their backs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
Eric, how do you ban CO2 and keep breathing?
How do you stop the earth from producing CO2? How do you stop volcanoes from erupting?

How you ban the most important 'greenhouse' gas, water vapor?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2012
Anti:

"the nearly $700,000 grant for development of a musical about global warming. When it opened in Kansas City, a reviewer said he learned nothing new about the topic, that the songs sounded like 'Wikipedia entries set to music,' and that the performance included flying monkey poop."
http://www.realcl...air.html

Who gives a flying about economics when survival is at stake?

I bet the people of DPRK would care deeply about an economy, if the govt allowed them to think about it.

Centrally planned economies stifle the innovations and resourced NEEDED for survival. Data is very clear.

But in any event, have you looked at the demographics lately? It won't be long before humans disappear because they are not replacing themselves. This is exactly what the socialist Ehrlich advocates.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2012
Why population and economics matter:

"Tasmania, an island off southeast Australia. Nearly the size of Ireland, it was colonized 34,000 years ago by people with sophisticated toolmaking skills who came across a land bridge from Australia. By the 18th century, Tasmanians used simple technology, hunting with rocks and crude clubs."
"the island's population, about 4,000 in the 18th century, at some point fell below the level necessary for complex skills to be passed from generation to generation. Scientists increasingly think population size and density have had a big impact on human development at certain pivotal points. That continues in the modern world, as young people disproportionately produce innovation, generate economic growth, and finance social support networks for the elderly."
http://discoverma...-changes
Europeans are reaching that point economically as they run out of OPM and population.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2012
antialias:

And the science of ALL countries (socialist or capitalist or whatever elose) says AGW is a problem we have to deal with. And unfortunately it's a global problem with global sources - meaning that we have to deal with it in a global manner.
What "Global Warming" are you talking about? There's been no significant global warming in more than 15 years.

Who gives a flying about economics when survival is at stake?
How is "survival" at stake? Historically, a warmer globe is a more hospitable globe.

From Stanford university:

"Although most of the forecasts of global warming's repercussions have been dire, an examination of the likely effects suggests little basis for that gloomy view."

Expected Effects of Global Warming

antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2012
Historically, a warmer globe is a more hospitable globe.

Much of Africa is already barely habitable. Water shortage increases due to gloabl warming are already causing large migrations. Deserts are expanding. This does not look like 'more habitable' to me.

Then you get problems like this:
http://phys.org/n...res.html

Does such a world, where more than a third of it is a dead zone, look 'more habitable' to you?

Get out of lala-land.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2012
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-enron-wants-global-warming

And the attempts to hide the hockey stick,MWP and the emails.

AGW is a load of crap.


And you rely on CATO to support your assertions? No wonder your world view is so skewed and screwed up. Rumour, inuendo and politics are poor substitutes for scientific rigour.

But, you have no idea what that means, and you are too indoctrinated to find out.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2012
Eric, how do you ban CO2 and keep breathing?
How do you stop the earth from producing CO2? How do you stop volcanoes from erupting?

How you ban the most important 'greenhouse' gas, water vapor?


Hahaha wow now that's funny! Once again, you display your utter lack of intellegent dialog along with your wilful and deliberate obtuseness.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2012
Much of Africa is already barely habitable.
How is this different than before "AGW?"

Water shortage increases due to gloabl warming are already causing large migrations.
Where?

Deserts are expanding.
Where?

This does not look like 'more habitable' to me.
The world has been greening, not becoming more arid.

"All latitude bands show positive trend,"

Then you get problems like this:

Does such a world, where more than a third of it is a dead zone, look 'more habitable' to you?
That's a completely different world than we have today, with completely different circulations and heat exchange systems. You might as well be talking about Tatooine.

Get out of lala-land.
Indeed, you should. Try learning a little about the actual science of a warmer world. What would it really mean?

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2012
Uba you are truly daft! This from your own link answers the questions you asked.

Earth is always changing. Knowledge about where changes happened is the first step for us to understand how these changes affect our lives. In this paper, we use a long-term leaf area index data (LAI) to identify where changes happened and where has experienced the strongest change around the globe during 1981-2006. Results show that, over the past 26 years, LAI has generally increased at a rate of 0.0013 per year around the globe. The strongest increasing trend is around 0.0032 per year in the middle and northern high latitudes (north of 30°N). LAI has prominently increased in Europe, Siberia, Indian Peninsula, America and south Canada, South region of Sahara, southwest corner of Australia and Kgalagadi Basin; while noticeably decreased in Southeast Asia, southeastern China, central Africa, central and southern South America and arctic areas in North America.


cont...
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2012
Once again, you should actually read the material you post in support of your nonsense.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2012
Once again, you should actually read the material you post in support of your nonsense.
Obvously you don't understand what it means to have a generally positive trend. This means that globally, greening is increasing, not decreasing.

Maybe you should read and take a minute to comprehend the whole paper, before cherry picking insignificant data from it to support your false contentions.

Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2012
Obvously you don't understand what it means to have a generally positive trend. This means that globally, greening is increasing, not decreasing.

Maybe you should read and take a minute to comprehend the whole paper, before cherry picking insignificant data from it to support your false contentions.



Read it again there skippy. While there is a generally increasing trend of greening, it is in areas like Canada and Siberia, where there is no potencial for increasing food production. You ever see tundra? Or the rock of the Canadian shield? That's where the greening is occurring.

Just another example of your deliberate and wilful obtuseness.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
And you rely on CATO to support your assertions?

The NSF slapped Mann's wrist for his 'hokey' stick subterfuge.

How can the journals or science organizations be trusted when they assert the science is 'settled'?

"Please see the statement from the American Physical Society where it is stated: The evidence is incontrovertible; i.e. it can't be discussed, just like religion. The [society] will discuss the mass of a proton for example, or negative energy, but global warming is incontrovertible…. "
http://dotearth.b...-divide/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2012
"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."
http://books.nap....p;page=4
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2012
Of course it is presumed the NSF is unbiased, non-political, and scientific.
Quite an assumption.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2012
"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions etc


OMG here we go again! Do you even READ the material you use to support your nonsensical arguments? I am laughing as I give that post a 5 rating, because the full report is an excellent example of where scientific concensus is heading. To quote from the report:

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.


Thanks Ry, I hadn't seen that one previously.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
Maggy, why did Mann et al and IPCC feel the need to obfuscate if the data was so clear that CO2 is the cause?
But then the NSF doesn't claim CO2 is the cause nor does it explain why the Vikings could sail to North America 1000 years ago and farm Greenland.
Oh, THAT's why they had to obfuscate. If previous warming climates couldn't be attributed to man made CO2 how can the present data be explained. And man made CO2 had to be the culprit to control the world economies.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2012
Eric, how do you ban CO2 and keep breathing?
How do you stop the earth from producing CO2? How do you stop volcanoes from erupting?

How you ban the most important 'greenhouse' gas, water vapor?


Another example of appalling scientific ignorance I shall deny for the benefit of neutrals reading this thread, for of course the individual who wrote this nonsense is beyond help ......

What person needs CO2 to breathe?? We need oxygen to survive !!

The point is - the excess CO2 pumped into the atmosphere is man made - that is within our power to limit. We can't do anything about CO2 from natural causes and neither should we. Water vapour is a red herring too. It's quantity follows temperature not leads it, a feed-back not a driver. Try reading some ( basic ) scientific literature.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2012
Maggy, why did Mann et al and IPCC feel the need to obfuscate if the data was so clear that CO2 is the cause?
But then the NSF doesn't claim CO2 is the cause nor does it explain why the Vikings could sail to North America 1000 years ago and farm Greenland.
Oh, THAT's why they had to obfuscate. If previous warming climates couldn't be attributed to man made CO2 how can the present data be explained. And man made CO2 had to be the culprit to control the world economies.


Paulii said it best: "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong".

You attribute a motive that is not apparent from the evidence. You then use that motive to support your assertation of a conspiracy that is not apparent from the evidence. You then use that unsupported assertation of a conspiracy to make an even broader assertation, which has no evidence at all.

Paranoid Schizophrenia. Look it up.
MikPetter
4 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2012
I think the report misses the obvious point that we need to do both CO2 reduction and adaption, its not a matter of picking one or the other. Without reduction things can get far worse perhaps beyond what can be adapted too (see http://phys.org/n...res.html ) but given we have already locked in a range of impacts we are obliged to adapt to them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
What person needs CO2 to breathe?? We need oxygen to survive !!

It was asserted that the banning CFCs saved the O3 layer so banning CO2 will then save the planet now. But humans exhale CO2 so what is the plan to stop humans from exhaling CO2?
CFCs are not created in nature so they are easier to control. What is the plan to control all the CO2 created by Nature and by humans to save the planet?
Even NOAA agrees H2O is the most significant 'greenhouse' gas. What is the plan to stop H2O from roasting the planet?
The analogy of CFCs/Ozone does not apply to CO2 and AGW.

its not a matter of picking one or the other.

It is if the goal is to control the world's economies. AGWites don't want to solve the problem. They only need a crisis to push their agenda. Fortunately there has been significant push back from the USA, Canada and AUS. The EU bent over and grabed their ankles. What do you expect from unaccountable govt?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
"The central lie is that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based on speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And the evidence? Much is revealed by politically corrupted processes and agenda-driven report conclusions rendered by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are trumpeted in the media as authoritative gospel. "
"Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham contributed a statement for my book that conveys deep concern about corruption of climate science in general, and within NASA in particular:..In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few climate scientists, including some at NASA,while special interest opportunists have dangerously abused our public trust."
http://www.forbes...l_2.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
"
"The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements."
"We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated."
"We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject."
"
http://wattsupwit...-models/
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2012
Nope. I make my own electricity. But don't worry - there's enough sun for everybody. ;) - zz5555


When did you switch? Did everybody switch with you?(Obviously not. Otherwise the article can not state "too little, too late.")

What was your source before you switch?
How much was your use before you switched? Less? More?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2012
Nope. I make my own electricity. But don't worry - there's enough sun for everybody. ;) - zz5555


When did you switch? Did everybody switch with you?(Obviously not. Otherwise the article can not state "too little, too late.")

What was your source before you switch?
How much was your use before you switched? Less? More?


What do you do when the sun sets or when your system breaks?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2012
Read it again there skippy. While there is a generally increasing trend of greening, it is in areas like Canada and Siberia, where there is no potencial for increasing food production. You ever see tundra? Or the rock of the Canadian shield? That's where the greening is occurring.
Are you an idiot? Did you even read the paper?

"In central Canada, west Canada and Alaska, LAI shows negative trend."

And FYI, there's plenty of agriculture in Siberia, Canada, and even Alaska.

Warming benefits Siberia.

Warming benefits Canada.

Warming benefits Alaska.

Just another example of your deliberate and wilful obtuseness.
It appears it is your intelligence which is in question.

gregor1
1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2012
the Sahara is shrinking
"The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years," Kröpelin said. "They have never seen so much grazing land."

"Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass," he said.

"Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back," he said.
http://news.natio...ara.html
XQZME
1.4 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2012
Last year the IPCC Summary for Policymakers admitted that the earth is not warming, is not expected to warm in 3 or 4 decades and man's influence is insignificant compared to natural influences and may be either positive or negative.
Several studies prove no correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
There are now over 91 proxy studies dating to the year 1 A.D and other studies covering 600 million years. After the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago, global temperatures spiked until 8,000 years ago. It has been declining ever since.
Both 30,000 and 14,000 years ago CO2 was 200 ppm and temperature was 6C less than now, but 30,000 years ago temperature was dropping fast while 14,000 years ago temperature was rising fast.
Still, Nervous Nellys just must glom onto every bad news report and never let go in spite of all evidence to the contrary. – AGW is just the latest bad news. And they are supported by ideologues, crony capitalists, and power mongers.
XQZME
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2012
Last year the IPCC Summary for Policymakers admitted that the earth is not warming, is not expected to warm in 3 or 4 decades and man's influence is insignificant compared to natural influences and may be either positive or negative.
http://ipcc-wg2.g...INAL.pdf

Several studies prove no correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
There are now over 91 proxy studies dating to the year 1 A.D and other studies covering 600 million years. After the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago, global temperatures spiked until 8,000 years ago. It has been declining ever since.
http://en.wikiped..._optimum

Both 30,000 and 14,000 years ago CO2 was 200 ppm and temperature was 6C less than now, but 30,000 years ago temperature was dropping fast while 14,000 years ago temperature was rising fast.
http://wattsupwit...-cycles/

Still, Nervous Nellys just must glom onto every bad news re
runrig
4.4 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2012
After the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago, global temperatures spiked until 8,000 years ago. It has been declining ever since.
Both 30,000 and 14,000 years ago CO2 was 200 ppm and temperature was 6C less than now, but 30,000 years ago temperature was dropping fast while 14,000 years ago temperature was rising fast.
Still, Nervous Nellys just must glom onto every bad news report and never let go in spite of all evidence to the contrary. – AGW is just the latest bad news. And they are supported by ideologues, crony capitalists, and power mongers.

Try researching "Milankovitch cycles" and get some basis climate science knowledge before you come onto this ( scientific ) website spouting such unitigated drivel.
Science requires you approach a problem with a neutral mind and see where the evidence takes you - NOT start with your preferred answer and then find evidence to support it. And you cant even do that.
_traw_at
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2012
XQZME
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 22, 2012
Runrig:
What evidence do you have for your unscientific assaults? Unlike you I provided links to scientific reports based on collected and analyzed data. It appears that your knowledge is limited to knowing that there is such a thing as Milankovitch cycles. A scientist would provide a link. Apparently you are not aware that there are several time spans for Milankovitch cycles. You may want to acquire some basic climate science knowledge (and debate skills) before you embarrass yourself with another non credible comment.

There are several other drivers of climate change. Here is a list and graphs of 21 of them. There is also a limited list of 14 proxies and what can be learned from them.
http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf]http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf[/url]

For your education, a comprehensive set of graphs are available here.
http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf]http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf[/url]

The 60 year climate cycle is shown here. Notice the graph of the H
XQZME
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 22, 2012
Runrig:
part 2:
This set of graphs focuses on 60 year cycles including the 60 year cycle of the center of mass of the solar system. Some use HadCrut3 data.
http://www.appins...ycle.htm

This site provides links to various internationally recognized climate research sites. You may want to become informed before psoting anymore embarrassing comments.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2012
XCUZ,

Just so you know, that 5 rank was an error on my part.

So, at least you will know that, since you don't know science.

Cherry picked, special-interest driven pseudoscience you obviously have a handle on, though.

Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2012
Haha, XCUZ... Let see, everything you say is dribble picked up from some Koch industry anti-fact, anti-environment, anti-climate-change, anti-science website! Either your the most gullible person out there or someone has set you up to play the skeptics role (for pay or not) and your not very good at it.

All of the real science skeptics have caved in an now recognize that AGW is in the process of becoming a planetary wide extinction event! Every bit as bad a massive comet strike. It doesn't take much tea leaf reading to see the great oceans acidify, the sea level rise, and ice caps and glaciers all melt. The forest burn, the farms turn to dust, and the population explode. Worst, its more like the movie, "Soylent Green" which you should rent. That will be the future for you. "The scoops are coming".

runrig
5 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2012
Apparently you are not aware that there are several time spans for Milankovitch cycles. You may want to acquire some basic climate science knowledge (and debate skills) before you embarrass yourself with another non credible comment.


I am at a loss as to how you can deduce that I am "not aware that there are several time spans for Milankovitch cycles". I admit that my post was curt but ommission is not proof of ignorance, just haste. Indeed I am entirely aware of the eccentricity of Milankovitch cycles and have been for 40 years from before I joined the UKMO and trained to be a forecaster ( 1st insult rebutted - the other 2 are self evident ). Any climate scientist would be fully aware of the direct link between insolation variations at 65 deg N and warming/cooling of the earths climate system. Examination here ... http://www.whoi.e...3864.pdf shows insolation decreasing at 30 kyr bp and rising quickly at 8 kyr bp. CO2 is not needed in explanation.
Cont
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2012
Cont
To your our other post ( which had the links and that I did not see - so therefore omitted links myself ). One link you post implies a 62 yr cycle in temperature possibly linked to ocean circulation and originating from a change in the centre of mass of the solar system. This I have some sympathy with. Are you familiar with the work of Theodor Landscheidt? However he quotes cycles of 166 and 83yrs which is at odd with the above.
I do not have time now but will consider this at more length in due course, though my initial thoughts are that this is yet another embedded cycle within the climate system and merely obfuscates the CO2 signal, which is becoming increasingly dominant.
Pity you included in the last paragraph "AGW is just the latest bad news. And they are supported by ideologues, crony capitalists, and power mongers" That rather gives away the angle at which you approach this subject and is a red rag to a bull to those who just examine the science, hence my response.
_traw_at
5 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2012
"Skeptical Science: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism."
http://www.skepti...nce.com/