Scientists map speed of climate change

Dec 23, 2009

New study finds that the average ecosystem will need to shift about a quarter mile per year to keep pace with global climate change.

From beetles to barnacles, pikas to pine warblers, many species are already on the move in response to shifting climate regimes. But how fast will they—and their habitats—have to move to keep pace with global over the next century? In a new study, a team of scientists including Dr. Healy Hamilton from the California Academy of Sciences have calculated that on average, will need to shift about 0.42 kilometers per year (about a quarter mile per year) to keep pace with changing temperatures across the globe. Mountainous habitats will be able to move more slowly, since a modest move up or down slope can result in a large change in temperature. However, flatter ecosystems, such as flooded grasslands, mangroves, and deserts, will need to move much more rapidly to stay in their comfort zone—sometimes more than a kilometer per year. The team, which also included scientists from the Carnegie Institute of Science, Climate Central, and U.C. Berkeley, will publish their results in the December 24 issue of Nature.

"One of the most powerful aspects of this data is that it allows us to evaluate how our current protected area network will perform as we attempt to conserve biodiversity in the face of change," says Healy Hamilton, Director of the Center for Applied Biodiversity Informatics at the California Academy of Sciences. "When we look at residence times for protected areas, which we define as the amount of time it will take current climate conditions to move across and out of a given protected area, only 8% of our current protected areas have residence times of more than 100 years. If we want to improve these numbers, we need to both reduce our and work quickly toward expanding and connecting our global network of protected areas."

The team calculated the velocity of global climate change by combining data on current climate and temperature regimes worldwide with a large suite of climate model projections for the next century. Their calculations are based on an "intermediate" level of projected greenhouse gas emissions over the next century (the A1B emissions scenario from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Under these emissions levels, the velocity of climate change is projected to be the slowest in tropical and subtropical coniferous forests (0.08 kilometers per year), temperate coniferous forests (0.11 kilometers per year), and montane grasslands and shrublands (0.11 kilometers per year). The velocity of climate change is expected to be the fastest in flatter areas, including deserts and xeric shrublands (0.71 kilometers per year), mangroves (0.95 kilometers per year), and flooded grasslands and savannas (1.26 kilometers per year).

The vulnerability of these respective biomes depends not only on the average velocity of climate change they will experience, but also on the sizes of the protected areas in which they are found. For instance, while the velocity of climate change is expected to be high in deserts, this threat is mediated by the fact that protected areas for deserts tend to be larger. On the other hand, the small size and fragmented nature of most protected areas in Mediterranean temperate broadleaf and boreal forest biomes makes these habitats particularly vulnerable.

What does this mean for beetles, barnacles, and other groups of species? The researchers note that their index estimates the velocities and residence times of climates, not species. Individual species that have a wide tolerance for a range of temperatures may be able to adapt in place as the climate around them shifts. However, for species that can only tolerate a narrow band of temperatures, the velocity estimates in the study are a close approximation for the migration speeds needed to potentially avoid extinction. Nearly a third of the habitats in the study have velocities higher than even the most optimistic plant migration estimates, suggesting that plants in many areas will not be able to keep up with the shifting climate. Even more problematic is the fact that natural habitats have been extensively fragmented by human development, which will leave many species with "nowhere to go," regardless of their migration rates.

The team's results not only underscore the importance of lowering greenhouse gas emissions—they also provide data for conservation managers who must now plan for the impact of global climate change. The research was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Stanford University Global Climate and Energy Project.

Explore further: 3Qs: Game theory and global climate talks

Provided by California Academy of Sciences

2.8 /5 (33 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A changing climate for protected areas

Apr 02, 2007

On April 6, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release a report entitled Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability that focuses on how climate change is affecting the planet.

Climate change predicted to drive trees northward

Dec 03, 2007

The most extensive and detailed study to date of 130 North American tree species concludes that expected climate change this century could shift their ranges northward by hundreds of kilometers and shrink the ranges by more ...

Land conversion and climate threaten land birds

Jun 05, 2007

Land conversion and climate change have already had significant impacts on biodiversity and associated ecosystem services.Using future land-cover projections from the recently completed Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Walter ...

Recommended for you

US northeast braces for flooding after record snow

7 hours ago

Weather forecasters and emergency officials warned Sunday that melting snow would lead to heavy flooding in parts of the US northeast, with hundreds of thousands of people told to brace for fast-rising waters.

3Qs: Game theory and global climate talks

Nov 21, 2014

Last week, China and the United States announced an ambitious climate agreement aimed at reducing carbon emissions in both countries, a pledge that marks the first time that China has agreed to stop its growing emissions. ...

From hurricanes to drought, LatAm's volatile climate

Nov 21, 2014

Sixteen years ago, Teodoro Acuna Zavala lost nearly everything when Hurricane Mitch ravaged his fields, pouring 10 days of torrential rains on Central America and killing more than 9,000 people.

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3432682
2.5 / 5 (21) Dec 23, 2009
Would these same scientists evaluate the 3 major warming/cooling swings of the last 5,000 years, and tell us whether how well biology migrated and survived? Two of those periods were warmer than today. Previous to that, for 5,000 years temperatures were much warmer and also subject to wide swings. (And prior to 10,000 years ago was an ice age.) Or perhaps, like the IPCC, the scientists do not acknowlege these previous warm periods, and their cooling counterparts.
Arkaleus
2.5 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2009
And what about the obvious and necessary flip side of this change, that some regions will become more favorable for certain species than before?

Or are we to infer that describing possible POSITIVE effects of climate change is taboo and forbidden by the high priests of green Gaia?
Loodt
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 23, 2009
What poppycock!

http://www.nasa.g...s.html#6

At the NASA website - URL above - the discussion on Climate Cooling has already started, sorry chaps, you and your models got it wrong, again!
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 23, 2009
You right wing fantatics... quite providing proof that AGW is a hoax, us radicals AGW people still want to go to a few more parties... I mean conferences.
LKD
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2009
Not Climate Cooling, Ocean Acidification. It's the new Global Cooling, I mean Population Crisis, I mean Global Warming, I mean Climate Change buzz term for the next decade. I swear it's like trying to keep up with teenager slang.

1 million dollars says that they will next cry about Global Stagnation.

Can you at least show evidence in the form of actual raw data? Or are we to just take your word for it, despite all the scientists that are being caught using bad science?
Velanarris
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2009
Global dimming will be next up.

That Nasa site is loaded with research that is contrary to current and unfounded propaganda. Thanks much.
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2009
Arggg... you guys just shut up..... I need to plug my ears... quit telling me the truth... There is AGW, There is AGW, There is AGW, no matter what you right wing, oil company sponsored, child hating, capitalistic pigs, say. I don't care that AGW science is a fraud and leftist propaganda, it exists, I exist therefore AGW exists.

But wait, global cooling, that must be man made.
But wait, global dimming, that too must be man made,
But wait, ocean acidification, tha too must be man made,

OK, I calling a conference to reach an agreement. Where should we hold this party??
zyan
3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2009
Those critical of the study, what are the particular, specific methodologies you find fault with?
Do you feel the results are more applicable to some of the biomes studied than others (eg tropical/subtropical coniferous forests, temperate coniferous forests, montane grasslands/shrublands, deserts/xeric shrublands, mangroves, flooded grasslands/savannas) or do you reject the findings across the board? Please explain.
What are your alternative results or how would you go about obtaining them?
How should the effect of ecosystem fragmentation due to human settlement be treated?
If you find this study faulty, can you suggest alternatives (preferably published in Nature or similarly ranked journals) to the forest industry personnel, fish and game managers, and wildlife conservationists who would use these results?
Thank you in advance for your on-topic attention to the aims and details of the science and resisting knee-jerk, emotional whinging.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2009
Loodt: Did you bother to read about what you are interpreting as "global cooling?" I am adding the URL for an actual explanation of the cooling of the thermosphere and ionosphere. It turns out that one of the basic predictions of the large models is that there will be cooling in this area of the atmosphere. It turns out that this observation supports the models. Intersting that you would pick it out to use as an example. Take a look at this URL

http://earthobser...id=42048

It actualy explains what you jumped on as something to refute the models. Nice try but you should really try to read an article instead of a headline.

LKD
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2009
Thermodynamics:
You can not say this:
"These observations imply that the upper atmosphere has cooled substantially since then. The research team expects the atmosphere to heat up again as solar activity starts to pick up in the next year."

And this:
"While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide."

in the same article, and be genuine. This is why people opposed to the concept of AGW are livid. The reporter put their own thoughts into the article INSTEAD of reporting.
LKD
2.2 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2009
Zyan:
I am happy to have a rational facts driven conversation. I would love to be able to see the theories worked out and have data that was accessible, but maybe these few samples will help you understand why most against this theory discount all these findings reflexively. Do I believe in global warming? Yes. I also think it's quite natural and cyclical.
http://www.timeso...6328.ece

I can find others if you like. This was an off the cuff search on things I recall reading. The last link, I believe, is the most honest and reliable view we should hold.
LKD
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2009
Hmm, went to add in the last line, and it deleted a few links. I am sorry.
http://wattsupwit...versity/
http://wattsupwit...udgment/
My recommendation: http://www.carc.o...o5/4.htm
Loodt
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2009
In reply to thermodynamics.

Strange how different people can read different things and come to different conclusions from reading the same article?

What struck me reading that article is the following comment : --we'll be able to test our climate models against the SABER data and then use that data to improve our models, improve the parameters of the models so that they match the SABER data, and then have a much better prediction going forward of climate change in the upper atmosphere."

So the AGW comrades have been telling us the science is settled, yet here we have a NASA guy telling us ...the models we use are still being tested and calibrated...

So come on, is the science settled or are we still probing for an answer?

Thank God for the sane Chinese!
bushtrekker
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2009
When "Inconvienent Truth" came out, I compared Gore's chart with that of the data from Volstak's Glaciatic Core samples (going back 455,000 years). No relationship, besides the change in CO2 follows the change in temperature by 200 years.

Wish people would get this straight!
Parsec
3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2009
Loodt - at least you admit you do not understand how science or modeling works. This is a welcome relief from people who claim knowledge they do not have.

The answer is that scientists are always trying to get more accurate answers. Thats why models incorporate dynamics that both increase and decrease temperature change predictions. The goal, unlike the AGW deniers, is to find out what is actually happening. So the models keep getting better, because more and more data is added, and they continue to be tested and refined.

And no, the science isn't settled. Its of great concern to climate scientists that models continue to predict smaller changes than we are actually measuring. That is, predicted warming is smaller than measured warming.
PhillyBuster
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2009
"So the AGW comrades have been telling us the science is settled, yet here we have a NASA guy telling us ...the models we use are still being tested and calibrated..."

Science is never "settled" and never will be. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about climate change or gravity. We'll never know as much as there is to know and, inevitably, some of our theories and conjectures will be wrong.

We use the best models (in the sense of paradigms, as well as in the sense of computer models) we can but no one would say that the science is complete.

A colleague of mine likes to quote (and I will paraphrase) James Clerk Maxwell of Maxwell's Equations fame in saying that we should never confuse models with reality. The best we can do is provide an approximation.

The current models we have attempt to explain the facts as we know them and appear to be doing a good, if disturbing, job of it.
Canman
2.4 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2009
Deniers,
Isn't it possible that at least one AGW believer is also an intellectually honest person? Maybe someone who really reads through all the data and thinks critically about it?
I'll say it: possibly AGW is much to do about nothing.
But you also need to be willing to say: possibly AGW could be devastating to the next several generations.
Part of being intellectually honest means being open.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 25, 2009
Deniers,
Isn't it possible that at least one AGW believer is also an intellectually honest person?


The problem here (since you can't see it) is that the "warmists" have been caught fabricating evidence. This taints all the research done by them on the subject. Their credibility has been destroyed.

I sincerely believed in AGW until the climategate emails. There is a strong urge not to be taken in again by the same people. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

The cat is out of the bag, and just putting out more suspicious "studies" will not put Humpty Dumpty together again. The new studies might even be valid, but trusting these people (the warmists) again would be an act of total stupidity.

This is what happens when you fake the science, and expecting people to blindly accept "studies" from tainted sources is unbelievably arrogant.
dachpyarvile
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2009
... I sincerely believed in AGW until the climategate emails. There is a strong urge not to be taken in again by the same people. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
...


The emails are the least of worries for them. However, these emails combined with the 'fudge factor' source code and the other documents paints a far worse picture than the emails alone.

They not only manipulated the data in ways to hide the decline seen in their "accurate" proxies, the source code in /FOIA/documents/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro actually shows modification of others' published data with the same 'fudge factor' code when plotting data points for their purposes!
prattner
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2009
"Deniers,
Isn't it possible that at least one AGW believer is also an intellectually honest person? Maybe someone who really reads through all the data and thinks critically about it"

No, I am NOT going to read through the data and really think about it. That is supposed to be the scientist's job, but they screwed that up by falsifying their data and playing politics.

This story starts by assuming global warming to be a fact, and then goes on to say that they are using existing climate data to make their predictions. But we now know the data to be incomplete and false. Garbage in, garbage out.

Until some really unimpeachable scientists who did not participate in this scandal or allow themselves to be sucked into the bogus peer review vortex actually do some real science, all the other science based on the falsified and missing data must be viewed as WRONG.

Until that happens, stories like this one will be mocked and ridiculed by the public, as they deserve.
LKD
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2009
Parsec, PhillyBuster, and Canman:
You wish to refute the concerns/rebuffs of those opposed to claims of AGW like myself, by all means, lets talk facts. Discuss this topic in terms of scientific procedures and reveal all data.

There has been no acknowledgment of the criticism that thermometers were placed bad areas too near artificial heat sources, distorting the data. http://www.surfac...ons.org/

I have shown 2 renowned AGW scientists have faked data, not including the IPCC. There is no refutiation from anyone. The 'Partisans' who support AGW have shown themselves devoid of critical thought in this.

There are huge concerns that need to be addressed if you wish to have a factual resolution. Start from scratch and rebuild the observations with both critics and supporters involved. If this is important, lets do it right. Currently, AGW is not science, but political leveraging.

If it was science, you could show me data to invalidate my view. I will listen, show me.
Damon_Hastings
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2009
Would these same scientists evaluate the 3 major warming/cooling swings of the last 5,000 years, and tell us whether how well biology migrated and survived? Two of those periods were warmer than today.

The problem is not the temperature; it's the rate of change of temperature. (And of humidity, acidity, etc.) Yes, there were many past periods where temperatures and CO2 levels were far higher than today. But it's the rate of change which is unprecedented, and it's the rate of change which will kill species and cause severe economic turmoil. No one in the AGW camp disputes that we could easily weather a two (or even ten) degree change if it were spread out over enough time.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2009

But it's the rate of change which is unprecedented, and it's the rate of change which will kill species and cause severe economic turmoil.


Interestingly, the "unprecedented rate of change" you mention arises from the source of the tainted data mentioned in the emails.

The University of East Anglia admits the emails are genuine, and the emails clearly show that the data was tampered with to produce the appearance of "unprecedented change."

I am surprised you rely on such tainted evidence to make a point when everyone discussing this knows the data you refer to was falsified.

This kind of corruption is why the scope of this scientific scandal, unlike anything seen before, will taint science in general, not just climate science. All scientists should be furious with those who have by their misdeeds cast doubt (in the public mind) upon those who are true seekers of the truth.
operator
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2009
7.Any loss in the credibility of scientists, at the hands of ignorant politically motivated pundits, is a huge loss and liability for America as a whole. Huge segments of your lives and livelihood are based on science. A world where people only accept what they want to hear, and dismiss those who are better trained, educated and able to get to the truth of matters is not going to do anyone any good, be it on issues of climate change, pollution, health and medicine, or anything else. This is probably the second great casualty of the Climate Wars, the fact that the ignorant have learned how to wield their ignorance as a powerful weapon, to the extent that trust in the educated and informed has been dangerously eroded at a time in our civilization when we can least afford it.
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2009
7.Any loss in the credibility of scientists, at the hands of ignorant politically motivated pundits, ...


Except for the above I agree with your statement that this scandal will affect the public perception of all scientific work.

The phraseology of your comment implies that you think the AGW scandal is a fantasy created by a group of ignorant and malevolent commentators.

Like I said, the scope of the corruption revealed by this scandal is truly frightening. There is no doubt that the data was falsified, and it is not the results of ignorant commentators, but the prolonged efforts of a group of "scientists" engineering the greatest scientific scandal in history.

Unless you wish to imply that it is acceptable to falsify science. In that case, the public perception of widespread scientific corruption is well deserved.
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2009
... A world where people only accept what they want to hear, and dismiss those who are better trained, educated and able to get to the truth of matters is not going to do anyone any good, be it on issues of climate change, pollution, health and medicine, or anything else. ...


Get to the truth of the matter? So, are you saying that "fudge factoring' raw and other data to "hide the decline" and to force-fit a model falsified by the unmodified data is "get[ting] to the truth of matters"?

I am curious as to your stance on this issue. Revisions a-d of the source code used to manipulate the data show that ways were developed by way of experiment to do as suggested in the e-mails and hide the decline of temps observed in the proxy data. Revision e shows a functioning model to do as the e-mails and documents suggest and hide the proxy declines to force them to match their models.

That is bad science at best. It becomes fraud when they knowingly do it. Revision e is functional code.
Damon_Hastings
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2009
Interestingly, the "unprecedented rate of change" you mention arises from the source of the tainted data mentioned in the emails.

Well, I won't join the debate over whether those emails show true malfeasance or were merely expressing a standard statistical practice using a poor choice of words. That debate is subjective, at best. But I will tell you that the rates of change of temperature, CO2, acidity, etc come from literally hundreds of different sources, and invalidating one or even a few of those sources has little impact on the overall picture.

Moreover, the point I was trying to make was that people keep saying "It was much hotter a long time ago, so global warming is natural/no big deal". Such statements demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. Now, if someone said "Temperature and CO2 changed just as fast in the past as in the present", then that would actually be relevant! But no one does. Because they didn't.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2009

invalidating one or even a few of those sources has little impact on the overall picture.


I disagree that what the emails reveal is subjective. As previously pointed out, examination of computer code shows how data was changed to fit the theory, as reflected in the emails, and in previous revelations about fraudulent evidence (hockey stick, etc.)
Also, this isn't just one scientist who went bad, but a team of scientists and the very team that the IPCC relies on for information about climate.
prattner
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2009
7.Any loss in the credibility of scientists, at the hands of ignorant politically motivated pundits, is a huge loss and liability for America as a whole.


Indeed sir! Being personally an ignorant and politically motivated non-scientist (history major), I was a bit doubtful of global warming because of all the politics surrounding it, but I figured the scientists had it all figured out, and who was I to judge.

But now comes incontrovertible proof of lies and political deceit, which is something my poor history major's mind understands quite well. History is little more than lies and political deceit, and having recognized AGW as part of that grand tradition us ignorant and politically motivated non-scientists know EXACTLY what to do about it:

Laugh the high priests out of town, ignore their prophecies of doom, and dismiss their false teachings.

It's a long road back to respectability, and it starts with repentance.
GrayMouser
1 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2009
When "Inconvienent Truth" came out, I compared Gore's chart with that of the data from Volstak's Glaciatic Core samples (going back 455,000 years). No relationship, besides the change in CO2 follows the change in temperature by 200 years.

Wish people would get this straight!

I'll give you a new hypothesis:
The increased CO2, following the warming, actually reduced the warming. It would have been warmer if the CO2 had not been present. (Water vapor can be added to this.)

Reasoning:
1) CO2 and water vapor absorb or block a portion of of the IR hitting the Earth from the Sun.
2) IR and lower wavelengths make up more of the Solar radiation (by Blackbody Theory) than visible radiation.
3) Blocking incoming IR will therefore offset surface warming caused by visible and UV radiation.

Questions?
operator
1 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2009
prattner your coming across quite religious on a science forum, ironic!
trtf4006
not rated yet Dec 28, 2009
Those critical of the study, what are the particular, specific methodologies you find fault with?
across the board? Please explain.


I happily reject the entire premise upon which this study is based. In light of this, the methodologies are irrelevant. For this study to have validity, the data predicating it must first have validity.

I suppose I might publish a study on the effect of global warming upon hard candies at the market. I go each day to buy a handful, and have measured a steady decline in their numbers each time I go. Since it's been brought to my attention that the shopkeeper is producing greenhouse gasses, and my study would be predicated upon AGW, my hypothesis may be that CO2 is a likely culprit...
Velanarris
1 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2009
Deniers,
I'll say it: possibly AGW is much to do about nothing.
But you also need to be willing to say: possibly AGW could be devastating to the next several generations.
Part of being intellectually honest means being open.

So that would mean saying the science is settled would be intellectual dishonesty.
operator
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2009
deviating from the original topic much eh! so for the people that are questioning the fact that the climate is changing, what basis do you have that the climate is staying static or indeed cooling? wheres your evidence, wheres the science that backs that hypothesis? questioning and slandering the present climate science doesn't qualify as evidence that the climate isn't changing, you will need to provide peer reviewed papers, get qualified and publish papers yourselves in peer reviewed journals, thats the process and how it works. and until you have overwhelming evidence your assertions are unfounded. whereas the evidence and data points towards climate change because of mans influence. most of you obviously don't do any gardening, know any farmers or do any ecological study, as you'd realsie how the flora and fuana is shifting and changing its range
Phelankell
1.8 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2009
operator,

We al know that there is only one constant in climate. That constant is change. It's called natural variation. We don't think the climate is stagnant, your ilk made up that viewpoint. We're not convinced there is an anthropogenic cause as neither yourself, nor climatology has proven such cause.
defunctdiety
2 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2009
Yay! Back from vacation.

Not surprising that nothing has really changed on good 'ol Physorg.

The AGW zealots still can do nothing but parrot their one-sided, faulty science messiahs (and, most pathetically, create more and more duplicate accounts to downrank and confuse, instead of actually trying to be honest and elucidate), while of course still ignoring that actual man-made environmental problems have nothing to do with CO2.

The skeptics still present rational objective arguments as to the tremendous uncertainty of AGW theory, that any truly rational or objective person will ultimately see are correct if they take the time to look.

Not surprisingly the absolute AGW proponent numbers are still falling as more and more scientific minds realize the closest we yet have to truth: that the science is far from settled and, worse, poorly represented.

Happy Holidays, to the open and made-up minds, alike!
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2009
operator,

Some of the evidence is in their own manipulated data. Look it over for yourself.

The proxy data showed an overall decline. So, they produced 'fudge factor' which is a piece of programming code that modifies the data and removes the declines in the proxy data observed for the current timeline from 1961 to the present.

Additionally, the raw ice core data also shows something very interesting. There are, comparatively speaking, massive spikes and declines in temperatures in the record at points and man was not responsible. Temps were much warmer 5000 years ago than today and AGW had nothing to do with it.

But, what to do with that data? Climate scientists with a vested interest in the politics algorithmically smoothed the data to remove the spikes and also completely removed the data series from before 1600 in the data presented in peer-reviewed papers. The result was the removal of the MWP.

Attempts to examine source code to verify results were met with rebuff.
MikeyK
Dec 29, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2009
Healing only comes when they admit they are oilcaholics.


This should be interesting, since big oil completely supports the AGW movement.

And why is it that when someone criticizes the East Anglia CRU fraud, he suddenly must be accused of wanting to cut down rain forests and pollute the world?

The whole thing was cooked up between Al Gore and Ken Lay at Enron as a way of creating a carbon tax scheme. It was necessary to create the myth of AGW out of thin air (or was it thin CO2?) Gore is set to make billions from this scheme.

But if you question any of this, you are a polluter, rain forest destroyer, nut case.

It seems the AGW supporters only have ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies in their quivers. What is surprising is that they are still trying to prop up the false science, even when it is obvious that it isn't working.
MikeyK
Dec 29, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2009
The only one who seems to be in a state of denial is a particular religious person who is unwilling to question the fraud being uncovered amongst those of the AGW agenda.
GrayMouser
1 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2009
Loodt: Did you bother to read about what you are interpreting as "global cooling?" I am adding the URL for an actual explanation of the cooling of the thermosphere and ionosphere. It turns out that one of the basic predictions of the large models is that there will be cooling in this area of the atmosphere. It turns out that this observation supports the models.

This is revisionist models. The original models (even as late as 2005) require a warming of the troposphere which has not occurred.
Thermodynamics also don't allow for this. The atmosphere is mixed by convection. If the atmosphere cools so will the surface.
GrayMouser
2 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2009
The current models we have attempt to explain the facts as we know them and appear to be doing a good, if disturbing, job of it.

Actually, the models are an extreme oversimplification of the processes in the atmosphere. We are not even to the point were we understand what we don't know.
To make matters worse, we see 'climate scientists' and modelers making claims that violate known physical laws. From what I saw of the course at an Alaskan university the materials were restricted to those picked by the department and there were no graduate level thermodynamics or atmospheric chemistry courses required.
If they are not trained to understand the fundamental processes, how can they understand the complex system?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.