Severe changes in world's leaf growth patterns over past several decades revealed

Leaf
Inspired by water transport in natural leaves (shown), researchers have created a synthetic, microfabricated "leaf" that can generate power from evaporative flow. Image credit: pdphoto.org

Extensive worldwide changes in the timing of leaf activity over the past few decades—which may have significant ecological and atmospheric consequences—have been revealed by a University of Otago, New Zealand research team analyzing satellite data from 1980 - 2012.

Their findings, newly published in the journal Nature Climate Change, provide the first global picture of change in the seasonal pattern of vegetation activity, known as phenology.

Leaf phenology is the timing of leaf emergence, growth, and death of leaves and is influenced by environmental cues, such as temperature and rainfall, but also by atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Research team leader Professor Steven Higgins says changes in these have previously been shown to cause earlier leaf emergence in Europe and North America, but other parts of the world, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, have not been well-studied.

"For the first time, we have shown that equally severe changes have occurred over large regions of Africa, South America and Australia. Overall we found that the phenological signature of 95% of the Earth's land mass has altered with 54% changing substantially," Professor Higgins says.

This could lead to higher extinction risks for species that depend on the leaf phenological cycle, a process already underway in the Northern Hemisphere, he says.

"For example, several bird species have already experienced population losses due to the effective seasons moving out of synch with their life-cycles, and similar changes have been reported for insect pollinators and even large mammals such as deer," he says.

These changes are also likely to have significant impacts on ecosystem stability and functioning, carbon and energy exchange between the land surface and the atmosphere, and agricultural practices, he adds.

Professor Higgins says the techniques the team developed for the study provide a sensitive and direct way of measuring how the 'breathing' of our planet's land-surface is changing.

"We now have a tool that will be useful for both monitoring ongoing change and measuring the reliability of early warning indicators of catastrophic ecosystem state changes."


Explore further

Family log of spring's arrival helps predict climate-driven change

More information: Three decades of multi-dimensional change in global leaf phenology, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2533
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Citation: Severe changes in world's leaf growth patterns over past several decades revealed (2015, March 2) retrieved 26 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-03-severe-world-leaf-growth-patterns.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1374 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 02, 2015
Professor, please consider that leaves are severely damaged because they absorb pollution, which is getting worse every year as emissions increase from around the world. https://www.youtu...Xy_j48k0

Mar 02, 2015
Leaf phenology...that's got to be worth some grant money. One would logically assume that as the earth's climate changes, as it always has, that leafs might be effected but the abundance or reduction in life-essential elements. But you know what they say about logical assumptions..."there's no money in that!"

Mar 02, 2015
Earlier leaf emergence. In other words, the plants are loving the extra CO2. I love how they spin this to appear negative. They did not mention if the leaves die earlier, as a result. I suspect not. This is another piece of propaganda being funded by the alarmists as they continue their assault.

Mar 02, 2015
My tomatoes did excellently last summer. I think they like all the extra CO2.

Mar 02, 2015
@WitsEnd

Pollution damaging trees is well known but that is much easier to remedy than the damage caused by ever increasing increasing and longer lasting CO2.

Mar 02, 2015
@WitsEnd

Pollution damaging trees is well known but that is much easier to remedy than the damage caused by ever increasing increasing and longer lasting CO2.

Trees aren't harmed by increases in CO₂

Mar 02, 2015
@kehvan

@WitsEnd

Pollution damaging trees is well known but that is much easier to remedy than the damage caused by ever increasing increasing and longer lasting CO2.

Trees aren't harmed by increases in CO₂


Problems with reading comprehension? The harm is indirect, try reading the article again.

Mar 02, 2015
Years ago I read something like this, a weather science station in Australia ? noticed an unusual effect ---more than this I cant recall. So, if this is the same or related research it is over some lenghty period of time.

Mar 02, 2015
Well, let's look at this data over 4.5 billion years and see how the earth's climate has varied. That would be science.

Mar 03, 2015
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "....Joseph Goebbels

Mar 03, 2015
@verkle: Read closer next time.

"For example, several bird species have already experienced population losses due to the effective seasons moving out of synch with their life-cycles, and similar changes have been reported for insect pollinators and even large mammals such as deer,"

BTW: Screwing with pollinators is flirting with crop collapse. Or maybe you just want to call that job opportunities! People with brushes manually pollinating crops! Should only up food prices ten fold or so. Great for the economy... err wait.. no.

Obviously written by someone who doesn't like how the trees are behaving. Or is it the trees who are alarmists? Changing their behaviour are part of their evil "Green" political agenda.

And those sneaky birds... Migrating extra miles just to scare people.

Mar 03, 2015
Years ago I read something like this, a weather science station in Australia ? noticed an unusual effect ---more than this I cant recall. So, if this is the same or related research it is over some lenghty period of time.


@katesisco

You've posted a number of comments on something you vaguely remember reading sometime, somewhere. Your comments have always been free from vitriol so your comments shouldn't be lumped with the science hating and ignorant trolls.

Having said that I would suggest when posing a question you ask for links to studies that clarifies your understanding.

Dug
Mar 03, 2015
Leafing phenology as regionally cued by rainfall, temperature, and CO2 is much more complex than indicated in the article - which seems far too general to offer meaningful data. What data produced is using an extremely brief observation period of 30 years. Given there are 25 year solar cycles it would be difficult separate leaf phenology from long cycle events and man made ones

Having spent a good deal of my 45 year career (biologist) in the tropics, I observed wide variation in the dry season associated leafing phenology - generally associated with El Nino events also with highly varying duration. In some cases these areas were far removed direct anthropogenic pollution sources. When you consider that the highest and most persistent CO2 levels occur in places like the Amazon basin and the African savannahs you have to wonder about generalities of assumptions like the authors. It seems far over simplified, with no real way for accurate comparisons before 1980.

Mar 03, 2015
@dug: Without being able to go past the pay wall all I can offer is that the title says: "over past several decades". It doesn't really state the length of time it's been changed for and how they accounted for natural variability.

Can anyone find the researchers papers somewhere not behind a paywall? (I tried, my Google Fu failed)

Mar 03, 2015
Earlier leaf emergence. In other words, the plants are loving the extra CO2. I love how they spin this to appear negative. They did not mention if the leaves die earlier, as a result. I suspect not. This is another piece of propaganda being funded by the alarmists as they continue their assault.

How to combat such idiocy and ignorance. It has nothing to do with "plants loving CO2" it has to do with the warming that the planet is experiencing, which is causing plants to leave out earlier. This is really bad for a wife-beater wearing toothless moron such as yourself, because it is also effecting the bird and animal populations. That means you don't get to hunt any more.

Mar 03, 2015
Blah..blah.. It has nothing to do with "plants loving CO2" it has to do with the warming that the planet is experiencing, which is causing plants to leave out earlier. This is really bad for a wife-beater wearing toothless moron such as yourself, because it is also effecting the bird and animal populations. That means you don't get to hunt any more.

Hmm... strong be the stupid in this one, little padawan.
http://wattsupwit...worried/

Mar 03, 2015
@WitsEnd

Pollution damaging trees is well known but that is much easier to remedy than the damage caused by ever increasing increasing and longer lasting CO2.

Trees aren't harmed by increases in CO₂


Do you know this by way of science, or do you think this because you deny science.

Mar 03, 2015
So research team analyzing satellite data from 1980 - 2012. They find leaf phenology (the timing of leaf emergence, growth, and death of leaves) is influenced by environmental cues, such as temperature and rainfall, but also by atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Overall the found that the phenological signature of 95% of the Earth's land mass has altered with 54% changing substantially. In other words almost every plant on the planet has been effected by global warming and CO2 level rise.

Only the most ignorant deniers with a planetary death wish will debate that. The question to everyone is what will you do about it?

Mar 04, 2015
howhot2... You've apparently seen science here that I missed. Please define "altered" and "substantially" and explain to me how not being an alarmist about said change is akin to having a "death wish".

Mar 04, 2015
howhot2... You've apparently seen science here that I missed. Please define "altered" and "substantially" and explain to me how not being an alarmist about said change is akin to having a "death wish".

I'll jump in here for How:
Why do you categorise people who accept AGW science (undeniable if you understand it) as "alarmist"?
That would presuppose being "alarmist" for the sake of it.
The point is, the course we are on by continuing (increasing even) the burning of fossil fuels is the alarm.
In other words the science points to that conclusion. It is a world changing process we are on.
No not alarmist at all.
Just pointing out what the science is saying. Tough and all that, but some of us recognise our responsibilities and post here as a small effort to help.
And yes it is "alarming".
We should be alarmed - and do something about it.
Starting with willful deniers getting the message and *arguing* on a remedy and NOT whether it's happening or not.

Mar 04, 2015
A "Planetary deathwish" doesn't sound alarming to you? I use the word "alarmist", and accurately I feel, to describe those who label every observed change in nature as A) caused by "Climate Change", however you decide to define it and B) detrimental to us and/or the planet as a whole.

Mar 04, 2015
explain to me how not being an alarmist about said change is akin to having a "death wish"
@jeffensley
I would like to offer some input with regard to this
specifically, this is referring to those who refuse to accept the overwhelming science, as well as deny that there is a problem

On PO we get a lot of people who are attempting to obfuscate the issue with politics (see Gore arguments), bad science (Confounded/Uba, ALCHE/waterprophet, etc), no science (Shootist) or simply blatant stupidity (antigorical/chootist and morons making a claim that when the weather is cold, there is no AGW)

see this study for more details about the well funded movement which is hiding it's funds to try to eliminate backlash who's purpose is to undermine the science in order to maintain the profits
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

I hope that clears that up a bit

Mar 04, 2015
I use the word "alarmist", and accurately I feel, to describe those who label every observed change in nature as A) caused by "Climate Change" and B) detrimental to us and/or the planet as a whole
@jeffensley
Accepting the SCIENCE is not being alarmist
following the SCIENCE is not being an alarmist

KNOWING that the science is valid and is not retracted, changed or deleted is NOT alarmist

you are assuming that people who are following the evidence are being alarmist when it is more a matter of acknowledging the science

BIG difference

my question at this point would be, are you religious or political?
or conspiratorial?
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

the world can't come together on a breakfast... you think the world is conspiring in science?

think about the logic there...

Mar 04, 2015
I don't have to read the report to believe that there are powers who would intentionally subvert the science behind a conclusion that would harm them financially. You would have to acknowledge however that academia falls into that category as well. It's not fair to label any person who questions the science behind the anthropogenic "Climate Change" theory as a paid flunky of the coal industry. I approach this subject with humility and healthy skepticism. We think we know far more than we actually do. In modern times, theories have become infallible truths. EVERYTHING can and should be questioned and I personally believe that's how science is supposed to work.

Mar 04, 2015
It's not fair to label any person who questions the science behind the anthropogenic "Climate Change" theory as a paid flunky of the coal industry
@jeff
i don't label until i see enough evidence to support a conclusion
I approach this subject with humility and healthy skepticism
That is good, actually
I came to PO as a huge skeptic myself... i was convinced no by the arguments here, but by the SCIENCE
science being presented by people like Runrig, Thermodynamics, Maggnus, Pink Elephant and more
In modern times, theories have become infallible truths. EVERYTHING can and should be questioned and I personally believe that's how science is supposed to work
it is good to question
the problem doesn't come from the questioning, but from the ignoring the evidence

questioning is GOOD... especially for science
and that IS how science works

the problem comes from the trolls who post here, and the tendency for them to keep altering their monikers (ie SOCKS)

Mar 04, 2015
@jeff, cont'd
You would have to acknowledge however that academia falls into that category as well
now, like i said, i was a skeptic a while ago myself... mostly because i didn't have access to information

ok, lets look at the academia issue a little closer
As i pointed out to another poster here: http://phys.org/n...ces.html
Climate science is likely the most OPEN science out there due to the problems with the anti-science movement funded by Big oil/$$$

they've even opened up source code so that people can search for flaws in the programming

now taking that into consideration, and knowing the scientific method
knowing how most scientists would like to catch rivals or peers mistakes because it makes them look better
then seeing that the bulk of the studies are still valid, unchanged, not retracted as well as most being experimentally/observationally validated... this speaks volumes about the science

Mar 04, 2015
The problem I have with climate science is the way it oversimplifies a terribly complex system, the variables of which are innumerable. Our best science says that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, any increase in the concentration of this gas undoubtedly means an increase in temperature. An increase in temperature invariably means an increase in water vapor, the biggest, baddest greenhouse influence of all, and we're off to the races, careening toward being Planet Teakettle. As far as I'm aware, none of the models have been accurate predictors of climate change. The terrifying increase in atmospheric water vapor has not materialized, in fact it has decreased. http://www.scient...warming/ To account for no recent warming, science goes on a quest looking for the missing heat only to " find" it in the vaguest and least understood places on Earth where there is virtually no historical context (the deep ocean).

Mar 04, 2015
oversimplifies a terribly complex system, the variables of which are innumerable
@jeff
ya gotta start somewhere
and it is known to be incredibly complex
As far as I'm aware, none of the models have been accurate predictors of climate change
actually, if you will look over them again (sans the links to any extremist sites) and read the error bars as well as the predictions, you will see that they are not only pretty good, but they're getting a LOT better

Here is a good article with a LOT of scientific references... http://www.skepti...iate.htm

Please take the time out to read the references and verify that the article is being factually correct in it's assertions

normally i don't like to post links to "articles", but i will if said articles have references and they are valid and supported by the references given

that link is one of them

cont'd

Mar 04, 2015
@Jeff, cont'd
To account for no recent warming, science goes on a quest looking for the missing heat only to " find" it in the vaguest and least understood places on Earth where there is virtually no historical context (the deep ocean)
and like you said above
and i will quote your own words
the climate is
a terribly complex system
Now, i don't know about you, but i always thought that when there is something that needs answers in science, scientists investigate

Well, scientists started investigating and are finding answers in a myriad of ways
and they can tell what CO2 is man made in oceans as well as natural sources (same for atmospheric) and that is presented in the studies
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
http://iopscience...4002.pdf
http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.nature...65a.html

to be cont'd

Mar 04, 2015
@jeff cont'd
now, about your sci-am link.. it references a study who's abstract is here
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.
continued

Mar 04, 2015
@jeff
reading through that study you also find
Absolute values of the calculated temperature changes are dependent on the model climate sensitivity and transient climate response and are hence somewhat arbitrary. The focus here is therefore not on the detailed match to observed absolute warming but rather on the changes in radiative forcing and their likely implications for relative changes in the decadal rates of warming from 1980 to 2009
&
Recent observations have suggested a correlation of the post-2000 stratospheric water vapor decrease with SST changes near the tropical warm pool region and associated cooling of the cold point that governs water vapor input to the stratosphere in the tropics (Fig. 1C). However, the relation between SSTs in the warm pool region and stratospheric water vapor changes character (from negative to positive short-term correlations) from 1980 to 2009, suggesting that ...
continued

Mar 04, 2015
@jeff cont'd
...suggesting that other processes may also be important or that the correlation may be a transient feature linked to the specific pattern of SSTs [sea surface temp's] at a given time rather than to the average warming of SSTs around the globe. It is therefore not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability
&
This work highlights the importance of using observations to evaluate the effect of stratospheric water vapor on decadal rates of warming, and it also illuminates the need for further observations and a closer examination of the representation of stratospheric water vapor changes in climate models aimed at interpreting decadal changes and for future projections
so the answers are not as clear cut as we would like
BUT
they do illuminate more than was known a short time ago


Mar 04, 2015
The terrifying increase in atmospheric water vapor has not materialized, in fact it has decreased. http://www.scient...warming/ To account for no recent warming, science goes on a quest looking for the missing heat only to " find" it in the vaguest and least understood places on Earth where there is virtually no historical context (the deep ocean).

Now one of the authors of the above linked paper did another 3 years later and here it is....
http://www.esrl.n...930.html
No, the "deep" ocean is warming but the main warming is in the upper layers.....
http://theconvers...ed-12439
Can you please tell me how the oceans would heat if not ultimately from the Sun?
We know the Sun is actually slowly declining in TSI, there is no sig geothermal - what is left is GHE.
FYI: the Oceans heat the atmosphere - not the other way around.
Look up ENSO.

Mar 04, 2015
@jeff
CONCLUSION
the science is still actively seeking the answers, but there are some very well known "knowns" that are relevant and cogent, and even the referenced study link states this
stratospheric water vapor act to cool the stratosphere but to warm the troposphere, whereas the reverse is true for stratospheric water vapor decreases.
so even though we are addressing a highly complex system with a lot of factors, there is still a lot of knowns that we can assign for legitimate data and spread the science around

the fact that the entire world is also working on it is proof enough that the situation warrants a close inspection and respect for the findings (which is why a denier of science is so dangerous with regard to climate change)

when one ignores the science for the sake of politics or religion, it really is the same thing as begging for a Darwin award

this is the future of the planet, not some individuals
that is the most important thing to consider

Mar 04, 2015
Now one of the authors of the above linked paper did another 3 years later and here it is....
@Runrig
Thanks for that
i wish you could set yourself up with a profile on http://saposjoint.net/ so i could get some more info from you

Also, i could use some input with regard to a couple studies
my profile name there is: TruckCaptainStumpy ( http://saposjoint.net/Forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=816 ) and tell the site MOD and ADMIN that i sent you and what you post as on PO

THANKS AGAIN

Mar 04, 2015
Now one of the authors of the above linked paper did another 3 years later and here it is....
@Runrig
Thanks for that
i wish you could set yourself up with a profile on http://saposjoint...mp;u=816 ) and tell the site MOD and ADMIN that i sent you and what you post as on PO

THANKS AGAIN

I've done that Capt .... what is it you'd like me to look at?

Mar 04, 2015
I've done that Capt .... what is it you'd like me to look at?
@runrig
i sent you the studies on SAPO's page
if i need to i can e-mail them if you leave an e-mail addy

one question in the PM there too

Also, headed out for a bit... be back later tonight

THANKS
PEACE

Mar 04, 2015
A "Planetary deathwish" doesn't sound alarming to you? I use the word "alarmist", and accurately I feel...
Alarmist is not what I would call that. I would call it stark realism. We are right now debating the survival of modern mankind from his own folly of combusting fossil fuels (the earths only stores of sequestered CO2). Calculations, simulations and math are not alarmist, they are however persuasive that alarming changes are happening. Regardless of all of the evidence, science and knowledge, there are groups (by motives of profit, greed, politics, or sheep-dom) that refuse to acknowledge their own experiences of climate change or breath of evidence science presents. These people have nothing but a "planetary deathwish". Deniers = Planetary Deathwish.

Fact.



Mar 05, 2015
Captain, I appreciate the above link to skepticalscience. The article is informative. I especially appreciate the ensuing the debate in the comments afterward. While I will acknowledge we get a closer to a "truth", however you can possibly define that in a system that is not static, we still know very little. The methodologies of the AGW theory deserve scrutiny as do its conclusions. Wattsupwiththat.com is a good reference for those skeptical of the methodology. The temperature stations themselves, the entire basis of modern AGW data, seem to indicate a bias that I hope is accounted for when "Global Temperature", again, however you can define something like that, is calculated.

Mar 05, 2015
Just a philosophical question howhot2... if warming, (which IS happening btw, what's debatable is how much, why, and is it a "bad" thing) has only limited influence from mankind, would we still be panicking? The Earth was already warming before the possibility of anthropogenic influence via CO2 concentration increase. Are we supposed to pick a temperature where natural warming is supposed to stop? What prevented the Earth from warming unchecked when previous ice ages ended? Do these mechanisms suddenly not work now?

What alarmists should understand is that I truly believe we need to use less resources. We need to become more efficient, less wasteful, and more caring of our planet. I simply don't want it to be done on the shoulders of a fallacy. We cannot and should not be the thermostats for planet Earth. It indicates an ego-centric attitude that says we have the power and we should wield it to keep the Earth at "room temperature".

Mar 05, 2015
we still know very little. The methodologies of the AGW theory deserve scrutiny as do its conclusions
@jeff
i am not saying that the methodologies do NOT deserve scrutiny, just fyi... but i would caution you against Wattsupwiththat.com due to bad science as well as paid for shills which are KNOWN to post and frequent there
from observing WUWT:
if you don't give me an article that contains references to scientific studies - it is supposition and NOT science
if they cannot comprehend the science and make claims contrary to the study, it is delusion, NOT science
when you concentrate on GORE and not the science, it is politics, NOT science
When you concentrate ONLY on studies that say what you want and ignore the multiple studies that refute it, it is cherry picking, NOT science
when you interpret the DATA from measurement devices and don't give studies, it is OBFUSCATION and cherry picking, NOT science...

and that is only the first 5 links i visited on WUWT

Mar 05, 2015
The temperature stations themselves, the entire basis of modern AGW data, seem to indicate a bias that I hope is accounted for when "Global Temperature", again, however you can define something like that, is calculated
@jeff
to continue
now, what you are seeing is a common fallacy and is used in MANY other types of pseudoscience... it is called flooding with minutia and hoping no one notices the failure of the scientific method or the logical fallacies, obfuscation, and (sometimes) outright lies

where is the study that supports the conclusions of the WUWT assertions? THAT would be a scientific study worthy of looking at
for a reason
starting with: PEER REVIEW
then moving on... the reputation of the actual scientists (not some crackpot meteorologist who has Dunning-Kruger)
and yes, that is intentionally negative ... when someone thinks they know more than 97% of the scientists around the world but cannot produce studies to support their conclusion... THAT is DK!

Mar 05, 2015
In the end it IS a blog, written by a guy with opinions, many of them regarding the politics of AGW which undeniably exist, but many of his posts are referenced. The example I was talking about in my previous post references this study. http://onlinelibr...abstract

Mar 05, 2015
What alarmists should understand is that I truly believe we need to use less resources. We need to become more efficient, less wasteful, and more caring of our planet. I simply don't want it to be done on the shoulders of a fallacy
@Jeff
let me interrupt you here
i do not consider myself an "alarmist"... i have been simply labeled as such by those who deny the science

I consider myself an investigator (because that was my job in the past)
that is where i get my rank - Truck Captain
Now, i simply follow the SCIENCE
i don't play politics (never have - and that caused friction in my job at times)

the EVIDENCE leads me to believe there is the potential of a serious problem that needs to be addressed
if we do NOT address it, there is the potential for serious consequences
i believe in mitigating the problem before it becomes out of control

Now, if you want to call me alarmist for that, then go ahead
but it is NOT alarmism, it is being PRACTICAL

Mar 05, 2015
In the end it IS a blog, written by a guy with opinions, many of them regarding the politics of AGW which undeniably exist
@jeff
which is why the "blog" is not considered evidence in science
and why i prefer studies

in fact, it is why i normally don't use blogs at all... because of opinion
even Skepticalscience can have opinions... but what i like about the site is that it usually explains the SCIENCE and uses references

when it makes a point, it references studies
that is not opinion, IMHO
that is science
The example I was talking about in my previous post references this study. http://onlinelibr...abstract
looking at that now

do you have a whole copy? not paywalled ?
so we can see some of the MEAT of the study?
and the conclusions? not just the abstract

feel free to elaborate on your conclusions with regard to the study
you are referring to the post to howhot, right?

Mar 05, 2015
@ Captain, (I wish there was an easier way to address posts) I was actually referring to my first post directed to you. In that post I said "The temperature stations themselves, the entire basis of modern AGW data, seem to indicate a bias that I hope is accounted for when "Global Temperature", again, however you can define something like that, is calculated."

You later stated that wattsupwiththat.com doesn't use references so I just wanted to clarify that this particular post WAS referenced. Again, when scientists are calculating their "Global temperature", they may already be taking into account this bias. Maybe you can answer that.

Mar 05, 2015
You later stated that wattsupwiththat.com doesn't use references so I just wanted to clarify that this particular post WAS referenced
@jeff
normally, it doesn't - it uses opinion and data
Again, when scientists are calculating their "Global temperature", they may already be taking into account this bias. Maybe you can answer that.
not sure what you are specifically asking

i will say that since i cannot read the whole study, i can only go by what i see in the abstract, and what i see is
Despite constant improvements in sensors technology, accurate air temperature measurements are still a challenging task. Discussion among the scientific community is open aiming at defining methods and best practice for achieving representative atmospheric temperature records for meteorology and climatology.
[sic] https://www.deepd...unnzr00Y

Mar 05, 2015
@jeff continued
based upon what i have read, and the abstract, then it is simply stating that there are differences in temp measurement between new and older devices
In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined
http://onlinelibr...abstract
so what they have done is: using the scientific method, they've determined just how much the effect is so that there can be corrections made to the data retrieved
The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.
the methodology is contained in the full study so i can't see it
maybe in a year or so?

does that answer the question?
without this kind of knowledge, we cannot have the accuracy we need

Mar 05, 2015
The important part, IMO..."During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. "

Mar 05, 2015
@jeffensleym; From your Elmer Fud questions about "global warming" that you acknowledge but can't quite wrap your brain stem around the fact that it's man made and how much it temperatures will rise, Let me assure you it is man made. Global warming is caused by CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels, about 5% cement production and methane from natural gas production. Here is a nice picture that describes the sources of CO2 and where it goes once it's created.http://co2now.org...600w.jpg
CO2 last week 2015 was 401.10 ppm. Last year 2014 for same period it was 397.89 ppm. Up until the 1880's CO2 levels never rose above 273 ppm going back millions of years. reference: http://www.climat...st-15938
A crude approximation is that for every 50ppm rise in CO2 there is a 1C increase in global average temperatures, A change that last 1000s of years.

Mar 05, 2015
Anyway, @jeffensleym, I'm not an alarmist. But the data is certainly as alarming as it is irrefutable. We are underway for major changes in the climate structure of the planet as evidenced by the daily reports we read right here on Phys.org, People are not making this stuff up. @jeffen perhaps you can explain away all of this and make us all feel good about mankinds CO2 and methane production from fossil fuel use.

Come on... you can put those brain stem cells to use.


Mar 05, 2015
@jeff
re-read that for clarity
demonstrate a systematic effect.
when you can quantify the effect of something, then you can take that into account and create better data that is more accurate

like i said above
so what they have done is: using the scientific method, they've determined just how much the effect is so that there can be corrections made to the data retrieved

Mar 06, 2015
There's nothing about that I don't understand. What I wanted to know is are they actually taking it into account? Just because a study showed issues with temperature data does not mean that any effort to correct the data based on said info has taken place.

Mar 06, 2015
howhot2, thank you for demonstrating your maturity level. Gotta say I'm disappointed with some of the posters in a supposed scientific forum. Between your insults and the passive-aggressive bystanders who apparently wander around and rate poorly any post that doesn't match their opinion, this feels like middle-school all over again.

Mar 06, 2015
There's nothing about that I don't understand. What I wanted to know is are they actually taking it into account? Just because a study showed issues with temperature data does not mean that any effort to correct the data based on said info has taken place.


A nonsensical statement. You are suggesting they left the uncorrected data in without taking it into account. Why would they mention it then?

Mar 06, 2015
howhot2, thank you for demonstrating your maturity level. Gotta say I'm disappointed with some of the posters in a supposed scientific forum. Between your insults and the passive-aggressive bystanders who apparently wander around and rate poorly any post that doesn't match their opinion, this feels like middle-school all over again.


Or, perhaps, they wander by, see statements that are misinformed, poorly structured or conspiratorial and therefore only deserve low numbers, and so rate them accordingly.

Mar 06, 2015
I guess I need to spell this out. This study was conducted solely by G. Lopardo, F. Bertiglia, S. Curci, G. Roggero and A. Merlone. What process does a study such as this have to go through before it's utilized by the likes of NOAA or the IPCC in their estimates? Is there a place to look to see the many ways in which raw data are adjusted based on things such as Time of Observation bias or location?

Mar 06, 2015
Or, perhaps, they wander by, see statements that are misinformed, poorly structured or conspiratorial and therefore only deserve low numbers, and so rate them accordingly.


You would think people would jump at the chance to "educate" those less familiar with a topic but it seems the rule, here and in most places where AGW is discussed, to insult someone who dares question methodology or conclusions drawn from a study. It's almost as if those who are most reactionary to AGW related studies actually understand the subject the least.

Mar 06, 2015
You would think people would jump at the chance to "educate" those less familiar with a topic but it seems the rule, here and in most places where AGW is discussed, to insult someone who dares question methodology or conclusions drawn from a study. It's almost as if those who are most reactionary to AGW related studies actually understand the subject the least.
No, it is not up to posters at an anonymous science site to provide basic science education to those who post to such sites , especially when the educational material is freely available elsewhere and requires the most simplistic of means by which to educate one's self about it,.

It is even less of a requirement that one attempt to educate a person who makes grand claims of fact and conflates scientific inquiry with political ambition. You are not posting from a desire to understand science, you are posting to preach your view of the conspiracy to others.

Mar 06, 2015
Or, perhaps, they wander by, see statements that are misinformed, poorly structured or conspiratorial and therefore only deserve low numbers, and so rate them accordingly.


You would think people would jump at the chance to "educate" those less familiar with a topic but it seems the rule, here and in most places where AGW is discussed, to insult someone who dares question methodology or conclusions drawn from a study. It's almost as if those who are most reactionary to AGW related studies actually understand the subject the least.


Jeff: There are many people I carry on technical discussions with on this site. There are also a number I have carried on conversations with in the past and have found out they have agendas or are too politicized to even try to understand the science. I give them a 1 and spend the extra time talking to those who are interested in science. You are the epitome of those I gasp at the ignorance of, mark down, and move on.

Mar 06, 2015
the rule, here...to insult someone who dares question methodology or conclusions drawn from a study
@jeff
the problem is that you are making an assumption that you are correct without being able to provide any reputable science supporting your conclusions,which is NOT "educating" those less familiar with the science
it is simply conjecture, and it actually promotes the impression of Dunning-Kruger

then there is the fact that far too many people enter into the conversation from a political or religious perspective with NO scientific acumen, but refuse to acknowledge the science when it is presented

when you make unsubstantiated conjecture it promotes conspiratorial beliefs and the circular reasoning comes in
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

there really is NO debate

Mar 06, 2015
No, it is not up to posters at an anonymous science site to provide basic science education to those who post to such sites , especially when the educational material is freely available elsewhere and requires the most simplistic of means by which to educate one's self about it,.


No it seems being pretentious and condescending toward people who dare ask questions is your sole job. Well done.

It is even less of a requirement that one attempt to educate a person who makes grand claims of fact and conflates scientific inquiry with political ambition. You are not posting from a desire to understand science, you are posting to preach your view of the conspiracy to others.


I'd be curious to see what you interpreted as a "grand claim". My questions are simple. The fact that no one has bothered to provide a simple answer suggests you don't actually know the answer and are unwilling to say so.

Mar 06, 2015
Jeff: There are many people I carry on technical discussions with on this site. There are also a number I have carried on conversations with in the past and have found out they have agendas or are too politicized to even try to understand the science. I give them a 1 and spend the extra time talking to those who are interested in science. You are the epitome of those I gasp at the ignorance of, mark down, and move on.


Thank you for proving my above point. I'll move on from any further discussion with you as well.

Mar 06, 2015
No it seems being pretentious and condescending toward people who dare ask questions is your sole job. Well done.
Oh bullcrap. Get off your ass and read about the basics of it on your own. Just learn the basics, it really is high school level physics.

I'd be curious to see what you interpreted as a "grand claim". My questions are simple. The fact that no one has bothered to provide a simple answer suggests you don't actually know the answer and are unwilling to say so.
Your very first post:
howhot2... You've apparently seen science here that I missed. Please define "altered" and "substantially" and explain to me how not being an alarmist about said change is akin to having a "death wish".
Your second post:
I use the word "alarmist"... to describe those who label every observed change in nature as...
Your third post
I don't have to read the report to believe that there are powers who would intentionally subvert the science
Shall I go on?

Mar 06, 2015
So what you're explaining to me is that you've taken your own bias against "deniers" and allowed it to paint your impression of me.

My first question is quite scientific... while you were oohing and aaahing over the above news, I was asking the very pertinent question of what those terms mean. "Significant" actually has a meaning in science. "Altered" and "substantially" do not.

My second post is pretty cut and dry and unfortunately you didn't post the entire thing. We DO have the tendency to interpret every change we observe in Nature as "bad" with no context of what defines it. "Bad" to what?

The last post was actually me agreeing with you. I KNOW that there are industries who are funding campaigns to influence society's interpretations of AGW science. This is not unique to the energy industry or the climate however. EVERY industry will do damage control if they see their income being threatened. Look up the butter vs margarine war sometime ;)

Mar 06, 2015
So what you're explaining to me is that you've taken your own bias against "deniers" and allowed it to paint your impression of me.
Absolutely not. I have taken your own words and formed an impression of you.
My first question is quite scientific....."Significant" actually has a meaning in science. "Altered" and "substantially" do not.
Not the way you put it. You were highlighting the diction while ignoring the context.
My second post is pretty cut and dry and unfortunately you didn't post the entire thing. We DO have the tendency to interpret every change we observe in Nature as "bad" with no context of what defines it. "Bad" to what?
A sweeping over-generalization, and an exaggeration to boot. Nature is being changed by the fact the climate is changing. Much, even most, of that change is "bad" in that it is man made and detrimental to the species being affected - especially homo sapien. But science doesn't chose which is or is not "bad" - it records the change

Mar 06, 2015
The last post was actually me agreeing with you. I KNOW that there are industries who are funding campaigns to influence society's interpretations of AGW science. This is not unique to the energy industry or the climate however. EVERY industry will do damage control if they see their income being threatened. Look up the butter vs margarine war sometime ;)
What exactly did I say that you agreed with? Regardless, I do not agree with your mantra, not every industry will forsake ethics for profit, and to suggest that academia is only concerned with finances is both incorrect and conspiratorial.

You clearly come here with an agenda, That you don't think that is obvious speaks to your duplicity and immaturity, not our understanding.

Mar 06, 2015
Not the way you put it. You were highlighting the diction while ignoring the context.


Diction communicates ideas. Context is meaningless without an explanation of those terms. Ten paragraphs were utilized to say that plants are leafing out earlier.

A sweeping over-generalization, and an exaggeration to boot. Nature is being changed by the fact the climate is changing. Much, even most, of that change is "bad" in that it is man made and detrimental to the species being affected - especially homo sapien. But science doesn't chose which is or is not "bad" - it records


Man IS part of Nature. Every creature here changes its environment in some way or the other. When a beaver floods a gulley, are we to mourn the dead trees or celebrate the fish? If beavers were as successful as humans, millions of acres of land and trees would be lost to water. Change is change. Only we in our arrogance deign to label it.

Mar 06, 2015
Man IS part of Nature...
All 9 Billion of us (or soon to be us)? No we are far beyond Nature in my opinion. We are nature on planet earth, We are the masters of Nature and nature is "our bitch" to control. To see mankind's dominance over the environment, just get on a plane flight or go surf google-maps satellite and see the reach of the human tentacles. With that extensive reach, why do you find it so unbelievable that humans couldn't have the same impact on the air by fossil fuel combustion? Which part of that do you want to deny @Jeff? And what part of the planet's stewardship do you want to give up and sacrifice for big energy and the 1%?


Mar 06, 2015
[We are the masters of Nature and nature is "our bitch" to control.


No, we're just players on the field. Nature makes the rules. No offense but that's an amazingly arrogant statement. I'll take Nature's billions of years of adaptation over our "knowledge" and failed attempts to control it any day of the week.

And what part of the planet's stewardship do you want to give up and sacrifice for big energy and the 1%?


Stewardship is a noble cause. An attempt to control climate and temperature with technology is folly. We don't have the capacity to understand all the influences of climate nor the unintended consequences of trying to alter it. By all means, lets reduce our fossil fuel use and energy consumption. I'm a strong proponent of living lightly Just don't do it on the flawed notion that it's going to have any impact on the Earth's climate or ocean levels.

Mar 06, 2015
@jeffl It will take Nature's billions of years of adaptation to do what one person in a lab can do to genetically modify corn to glow green in the dark! I admire your idealism but that is no reason to ding me with a 1. Read our comments and think about them through before you open the flamethrower, Yeah I meant what I said to be "amazingly arrogant" and amazingly profound at the same time. My question to you friend, is it true or not?

I to am a proponent of living lightly and I agree that as an individual, we will have little impact on climate or the consequences of anthropogenic global warming. The only system in place that can have an impact is our regulatory bodies (ie governments) that can restrict oil, coal, and gas use. If done globally as a UN effort we could impact climate and perhaps divert the effects of excessive CO2 on nature. Maybe we can avert an extinction event if we agree and act on common cause.


Mar 07, 2015
I to am a proponent of living lightly and I agree that as an individual, we will have little impact on climate or the consequences of anthropogenic global warming. The only system in place that can have an impact is our regulatory bodies (ie governments) that can restrict oil, coal, and gas use. If done globally as a UN effort we could impact climate and perhaps divert the effects of excessive CO2 on nature. Maybe we can avert an extinction event if we agree and act on common cause.


At the moment, I'm not very fond of large governing bodies. They've demonstrated some serious inefficiencies and seem to attract/create the corrupt and ego-centric.I don't like the idea of granting them even more control over the country and world. I'm far more attracted to the idea of changing culturally, instead of via force/regulations. It takes more creativity and nuance, but I think efficiency becomes "cooler" by the year.


Mar 07, 2015
OK, data mavens. Cite me ONE example of someone that has reversed their position during this (pointless) debate in the last five years? ONE alarmist that has made the "very major changes" in their life that they ask from ours? Do you really have so little else to do, or do you suffer from the same clinical pathology? phys.org is the worst. Muddy the water with crap debate simply for hits. "Pimping physics" should be their logo.

I hope this time we have an all out nuclear exchange with Russia. This culture needs to be culled. So many worthless humans desperately trying to convince themselves that their lives actually mean something by arguing with other blanks.

Mar 08, 2015
Cite me ONE example of someone that has reversed their position during this (pointless) debate in the last five years?
@whopper
me

when i first started reading PO, i was a huge skeptic re: AGW and global warming

Now, after reading the links, science and studies, i am aware that the debate is only in the minds of the scientifically illiterate, the political advocates, religious, the anti-science and the conspiracy theorists (not even going to mention all the deliberate trolling from people like antigorical, shootist, uba or others)

the only way the AGW/Warming issue is even debatable is if the person is not aware of the overwhelming amount of science out there supporting warming, etc OR they are simply ignoring it
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 08, 2015
At the moment, I'm not very fond of large governing bodies. They've demonstrated some serious inefficiencies and seem to attract/create the corrupt and ego-centric
@jeff
might i just say that your assertions put you squarely into the "conspiracy" camp
you should really read this: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

secondly: your answer is a cop out as well
you are saying that you don't trust gov't so you are willing to completely ignore the scientific evidence around you

this is the same thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face

i don't know about anyone else, but it seems apparent to me that MOST people don't trust the gov't
most people think they are corrupt/ego-centric and more
i don't trust them either
that is why i refuse to concentrate on the politics or the other angles regarding the issue

the issue is scientific, therefore you should concentrate on the science

Mar 08, 2015
CO2 is going to keep on going up for a while. There is very little the advanced countries of the world can do to stop it. They can reduce almost all their inputs and there is still probably 1/2 the world that lives one step above the stone age. They are going to cook and heat with something flammable whether it's some form of oil, coal, charcoal or simply wood. Many of those places could use solar for a lot of it but that costs money those people generally don't have.
Also the shipping fleets of the world put out far more CO2 than all the cars in the world combined. That will have to somehow change also. Most of the plants are going to be fine. A few might have a problem with an increase and they will either adapt or die. Same thing goes with the animals and birds. They will also either adapt or die. There are not any other choices available to either unless we come up with an effective way of storing it somehow long term.

Mar 08, 2015
@
WitsEnd,samohta,jediknight190501,Science Officer,kehvan & other ignorant/thoughtless !

Plants have certain equilibria re CO2, Water & Minerals. its a well known fact in Food Science that changes can result in production of chemicals that don't favour good food production.

its been know for decades that with certain food crops, some plants start producing more cyanogens - which turn into cyanide. Cassava in Africa is one example, for Europe Clover has the same tendency, the latter of which is a staple food crop for cattle.

There are additional costs/safety issues when some foods produce hydrocyanic acid in their protein structures. Low doses of cyanide leads to paralysis which looks like polio in humans.

I don't like prospect of our meats having any cyanide in them, do u guys ?

As for wood, lignin is the key, and it would be great if more CO2 would increase the density of lignin & its growth rates but, it cannot happen without more rain, its basic biochem !

Mar 08, 2015
kennyhobo claimed
Well, let's look at this data over 4.5 billion years and see how the earth's climate has varied. That would be science.
Ooh yeah, or lets be even smarter & get an education in physics & calculus & observe rates of change & integrate using essential specific heats with temperature anomalies and determine the extra heat load and what it does long term !

What could possible be smarter than that kennyhobo ?

Any ideas & any based on a basic high school & uni education in heat flow etc ?

Mar 08, 2015
you are saying that you don't trust gov't so you are willing to completely ignore the scientific evidence around you


I've fully acknowledged that change is happening. That's really all we seem to have the capacity to measure (anomaly) and anyone with eyes could make the same observation that science has spent billions on. Beyond anomaly, we basically leave the realm of of science and enter the amazingly flawed world of modelling. Our surface temperature measure can't be trusted since stations located right next to each other can offer amazingly different temperature readings (up to 1.63 Degrees C positive bias for the older screens). Science is as limited as the people using it and as a scientist, I'm willing to admit our shortcomings.


Mar 08, 2015
the issue is scientific, therefore you should concentrate on the science


I don't believe this is a conspiracy to control humanity. I believe science is doing the best it can and is still falling short. What alarmists seem to demand of society however, is that everyone react as they have to the estimated 0.7 degree Celsius change in the last century and be willing to take action, with no clear goal and with no understanding of the nearly infinite moving parts of our ecosystem. If the goal is to control the Earth's temperature, I'll gladly pat you on the shoulder and call you Mr. Quixote ;) Again, I believe we should live as lightly as is practical and we in America have a long way to go still. I just want any change made to be based on a sound principle, with no expectation of a particular result and not be based on the "science" of AGW and the expectation that our actions will control sea levels and climate.

Mar 08, 2015
Cite me ONE example of someone that has reversed their position during this (pointless) debate in the last five years?
Modern Mystic, another poster here. Richard Muller, a climate scientists originally hired by Koch.

Now you have three.

Mar 08, 2015
Skepticism of climate models is OK, if your a climate scientist debating the design of the models. In that case, it's a question of 'is my formula better than your formula'. That is actually a fair and reasonable. However to claim that a model is wrong without understanding how the model derives it's conclusion and results is not logical. Nor is it helpful to finding a solution to the issue. In the case of climate change the problem is a global one, and the causes is mankind's voracious apatite for fossil fuel energy. Because of that, to impact climate change, governments have to weigh the predicted impact models show on the world and use it to strategically regulate the pollution sources. This is why modeling is so important.

Because each model uses different equations and different datas, no one method will be correct all of the time. However if you get 50 or 100 models, through them all together and they show the same trend-lines, you can be certain the trend is real.

Mar 08, 2015
Also @jeffensley, besides climate models being absolutely vital to mankind preparing for the pending global cataclysm, there are 100,000s of computer models we trust everyday. For example, the car you are driving on was probably crash tested 100s of time in simulations using finite element analysis before the car was even built. The gas being injected into your car engine was modeled 1000's of time to get the fluid dynamic design just right. The air flow passing over your refrigerators heat transfer unit was probably models 100s of time before the pump unit was selected. You seem to trust those models just fine. I wouldn't blame your denial on the models. I would blame it on your own bias.

Mar 09, 2015
That's really all we seem to have the capacity to measure (anomaly) and anyone with eyes could make the same observation that science has spent billions on
@jeff
you misunderstand the science
take your comment above: you observed something, true, but that is anecdotal evidence as well as eye-witness, and is subject to huge amounts of distrust. there is plenty of evidence that people who deny the science will try to justify the denial with ANY cold snap (weather) even though it was predicted ( http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf )
IOW - you are guessing
SCIENCE, however, is PROVING, nailing down the lid on what it can and cannot be

that brings us to: anomalies
when you have something that is studied (KNOWN, not conjecture) then you can also account for the data, like the study about temps and older screens we talked about
(but this is where the deniers make noise about altering the data)

Mar 09, 2015
@jeff cont'd
amazingly different temperature readings (up to 1.63 Degrees C positive bias for the older screens)
i think this is already addressed above as well as in the study, so i will move on
I'm willing to admit our shortcomings
as is SCIENCE
science is all about finding those shortcomings and addressing them for more accuracy (hence the study we talked about)
that brings us to the next point: conspiracy
What alarmists seem to demand of society however, is that everyone react as they have to the estimated 0.7 degree Celsius change in the last century and be willing to take action, with no clear goal and with no understanding of the nearly infinite moving parts of our ecosystem
the problem with this comment is that you are pushing a POLITICAL agenda without any scientific grounding or evidence

1- science is FAR more knowledgeable than you are giving them credit for, and gaining new ground DAILY

2B cont'd

Mar 09, 2015
@jeff cont'd
no clear goal and with no understanding
this is not true, as well as being a political lie based upon fear of the tasks that are a real possibility, but not necessarily a necessity right now...do NOT let the fear of a rich fat cat politician protecting his financial interests distract you from the science... try reading the vast amount of studies and how they tie together...
the deniers like to say "global warming causes everything" but what they don't realise is that GW just might be a major factor in FAR MORE than people realize... because it really can cause circumstances that would cause catastrophic results

Am i saying it is a guarantee?
no
is it POSSIBLE?
YES
and the less we do about it, the MORE PROBABLE those extreme situational fixes become

and THAT is what you are afraid of...

not the lack of science or knowledge, but the fear of loss of comfort, ease, habitat, reality or more based upon your wants/religion/politics/whatever

2B cont'd

Mar 09, 2015
@jeff cont'd
If the goal is to control the Earth's temperature, I'll gladly pat you on the shoulder and call you Mr. Quixote
it is more about survival of as much habitat, flora and fauna as we can possibly consider more-so than your tilting at windmills references... and it is NEVER a bot option to curb pollution, so consider that
I just want any change made to be based on a sound principle, with no expectation of a particular result and not be based on the "science" of AGW and the expectation that our actions will control sea levels and climate
Sorry, i am calling BULLSH*T on this!

if you were concerned about the science and having sound judgements based upon sound principles then you would be promoting the SCIENCE and not spouting political garbage
like the above references in your comment
no clear goal and with no understanding
THAT comment itself is proof that you don't understand or even care about the SCIENCE

sorry bud
try again

Mar 09, 2015
@jeff
Again, I believe we should live as lightly as is practical and we in America have a long way to go still
I almost thought we were making headway but then you posted
I just want any change made to be based on a sound principle...not be based on the "science" of AGW ...
Like i said above, this is PURELY POLITICAL as well as your FEAR of the unknown and loss of comfort, or even more

it's not the science of AGW, there is ONLY SCIENCE
CLIMATE SCIENCE, PHYSICS, ETC

When in a jail, all the criminals will say they are innocent

when in congress, all the politicians will say they are honest and out for our best interest (or to protect our way of life, or to protect the constitution as they are sworn to do)

politicians LIE
they will usually support their financial base long before anything else (99%)

don't keep falling for the crap
STICK TO THE SCIENCE and you will learn MUCH
especially how much we DO know
and what we CAN do

SCIENCE > politics/religion etc

Mar 10, 2015
Skepticism of climate models is OK, if your a climate scientist debating the design of the models. In that case, it's a question of 'is my formula better than your formula'. That is actually a fair and reasonable. However to claim that a model is wrong without understanding how the model derives it's conclusion and results is not logical.


My skepticism is based on my understanding of the incalculable number of variables involved in attempting to simulate something as complex as a planet's ecosystem. Sending a probe to Ceres is a piece of cake (no offense to NASA) compared to attempting to simulate the Earth. The rules and possibilities change on a moment to moment basis... we can attempt to understand what happened in the near past but we can't take that knowledge and assume it applies to a future where conditions are different.

Mar 10, 2015
Like i said above, this is PURELY POLITICAL as well as your FEAR of the unknown and loss of comfort, or even more


It would appear to me that I'm FAR more comfortable with change than those who panic every time a new study comes out showing that something in Nature has "changed" over the last century and demand we do something about it. Nature responds to particular conditions for a reason. That we deign to interfere with that shows an amazingly unhealthy and potentially destructive attitude toward a planet that has existed for billions of years. Change WILL happen regardless of what laws we pass. We are NOT in control and I think this idea is terrifying to those most supportive of AGW-based legislation.

Mar 10, 2015
it's not the science of AGW, there is ONLY SCIENCE
CLIMATE SCIENCE, PHYSICS, ETC


Science is simply the unbiased observation of what is. Modelling the future is not science, it's statistics. Applying meaning to the above observations is human nature, not science. This is where AGW loses people like me. All I see from these studies is scientists screaming "We saw a change and it's BAD"... "bad" in bold for a reason. At this point we have left science far behind and are deep in the realm of human psychology, ego-centrism, and borderline narcissism.

Mar 10, 2015
It would appear to me that I'm FAR more comfortable with change than those who panic every time a new study comes out showing that something in Nature has "changed" over the last century and demand we do something about it
@jeff
i'm not panicing
you should read this because i think it is relevant
First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.
Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.
http://www.skepti...iate.htm
it's not about the change, it is about the rapid change and the causes of said change
RAPID change

Mar 10, 2015
Modelling the future is not science, it's statistics
@jeff
are you really trying to say that predictions and validations are NOT a part of science?
because that is one of the tests of a theory... that it makes VALID predictions
All I see from these studies is scientists screaming "We saw a change and it's BAD"
this is your own failure
it is also your own fear of what is in front of you making you turn away and ignore it (called the fight or flight syndrome)
you are assuming that if you "hide your head in the sand" it will all go away in your lifetime... well, it hasn't, it won't, and you are simply pushing the problem onto future generations while taking no measure to attempt to mitigate the problems today, which are far easier than trying to do it later when it is far more advanced
it may not even be possible

the point is that you are ignoring the science because you fear the results, and that is painfully obvious in your posts
cont'd

Mar 10, 2015
At this point we have left science far behind and are deep in the realm of human psychology, ego-centrism, and borderline narcissism
@jeff
ONLY if you are ignoring the science and thinking that if you do nothing it will also not get worse
this is a serious case of you fearing the requirements of the future

you are arguing from a non sequitur and then making the assumption that all change is natural, therefore survival (or mass extinction) is going to happen regardless

This is NO DIFFERENT than taking a clip fed automatic, jacking a round in the chamber and playing Russian roulette
you are claiming the inevitable & ignoring the ways that it is possible to mitigate the situation (safety catch, unload the weapon, remove the firing pin, don't pull the trigger, aim it away from you) so you stick your head in the sand and let your KIDS play...

so assuming we can't do anything when there are hundreds of little things we CAN do is really, really STUPID

Mar 10, 2015
@jeff last but not least, lets get back to science and this comment
Science is simply the unbiased observation of what is...blah blah blah...we have left science far behind...
this really truly demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge regarding SCIENCE
first of all, for a THEORY to become s THEORY, it MUST make valid verifiable predictions... check all the big ones we have, they all make valid predictions, etc

science is not about just observation of what is, it is also about defining that observation and defining the causes, which is where physics and climate science comes in

Now, if you want to learn more about that, go here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
start with the physics

it is not about panicking
it is about trying to mitigate our problems and avoid possible harsher results

it is no different than YOU not dumping oil/heavy metals/poisons/haz-mat into your current water supply
you wouldn't do this NOW
so why keep avoid the pollution/AGW problem?

Mar 10, 2015
this is a serious case of you fearing the requirements of the future


I don't fear the requirements, in fact as someone who lived out of a tent for five months, I'm probably more fit than most to do what would be necessary if we were to actually attempt to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What I fear are the institutions that would impose these potentially misguided requirements. I already live lightly. My electric bill was $39 last month. I bet 99% of people begging the government to impose controls and restrictions can't say the same and would balk when they realize that the attempt to control the temperature of the Earth would mean they are no longer permitted to control the temperature of their own living space.

Mar 10, 2015
this really truly demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge regarding SCIENCE
first of all, for a THEORY to become s THEORY, it MUST make valid verifiable predictions... check all the big ones we have, they all make valid predictions, etc


As a scientist I take issue with someone suggesting I don't understand what science is. I'd say I'm more intimately aware of its shortcoming than the average Joe. Now and again, we attempt to model the transport of petroleum free product through an aquifer to determine whether it's a risk to nearby receptors. The method initially presented to us involves a lot of "best fit" curve adjustments and presumptions about the conditions that exist on a particular site. It also involves an arbitrary cut off transmissivity. Numbers above that are "bad", those below are ok. Who gets to define this? One could argue that the ability to garden in Greenland and increased vegetation on Africa are due to warming. I would label those as "good" myself.

Mar 10, 2015
My point above being, modelling the transport of gasoline through an aquifer at one location is amazingly simple next to modelling the climate and even at that small scale, I'm already expected to make "best guesses". It's easy to argue that on the climate scale, it's pretty much all "best guesses" and to me, that's outside the realm of science.

Mar 10, 2015
Guys, this is semantics. Modelling the future per se isn't science, its inductive reasoning- the more scientific the method is in producing the model, the more accurate the reasoning, generally.

Global climate isn't impossible to model. Just complicated. And inductive reasoning shouldn't be criticized on the basis of it being inductive- it should be based upon its premises. If they can be sown to be wrong, then the conclusion is wrong. You don't know the conclusion. But this is life, you never know the conclusion. You make a decision, whether or not you make a decision.

Not making a decision is the problem, since 1989. World polity was warned. The world is warming, the oceans, acidifying. Energy intensity of human development is implicated in the destabilization of the planet's life support and diversity. Wise polity makes decisions. Weak polity declines, letting factors write conditions for future polity. When the decision comes to ration food, it will be easy. Lets avoid that.

Mar 10, 2015
I don't fear the requirements
@jeff
uhm, actually, you DO... see your further comment
What I fear are the institutions that would impose these potentially misguided requirements
Ok, let me "susplain" it again

you fear the POLITICS because politicians are working at odds to the science
politicians are bought and paid for by their financial support...
My electric bill was $39 last month
mine was $0
as someone who lived out of a tent for five months
most of my life in the military in a tent, and 5 years recently too.. this is irrelevant...

NONE of that explains why you ignore the science and continue to cling to the political/religious ANTI-science claims!

especially considering your fear is based upon what those idiot politicians will do REGARDLESS of the science!

the "DEBATE" in climate science is ENTIRELY POLITICAL
there is NO scientific debate in climate science... really, there isn't
there is only the SCIENCE

2Bcontinued

Mar 10, 2015
As a scientist I take issue with someone suggesting I don't understand what science is
@jeff
and as a former investigator and someone who likes empirical evidence, proof and like to read science, i find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you are a scientist when you are ignoring the overwhelming amount of studies out there to argue POLITICAL POINTS and religious diatribe with regard to climate science

PLUS, there is always rule 37: http://dis.4chan....71597138
with the caveat: "there are no (insert professional title here) on the internet"
IOW - links/proof or it is not real

and that brings us back to your claims of being a "scientist"
ok, ignoring the fact that you've never actually supplied proof of this... lets simply look at the evidence out there
take THIS link, for example: http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

normally i don't link blogs but..
2B CONT'D

Mar 10, 2015
@jeff cont'd
Normally i don't link BLOGS but... that blog happens to point out something interesting
IF you take all the submitted papers and look at them, there is an OVERWHELMING NUMBER that agree with global warming and the science

now, forget anyone has any professional ANYTHING and lets think about that
there are levels of evidence: eyewitness and hearsay is the worst kind because of its widely known problems (as demonstrated by the grade school "telephone" pass the story experiment)
the BEST level is the empirical data observed and published in a study that is in a reputable peer reviewed publication

and now you are saying (i am paraphrasing it) to IGNORE that because of your leanings towards conspiracy and your fear of the political decisions that are always normally financially based and STUPID

well, you SHOULD fear the political stupidity... but you have NO evidence of WORLD conspiracy or that refutes the SCIENCE

2B cont'd

Mar 10, 2015
@jeff cont'd
I'd say I'm more intimately aware of its shortcoming
you may well be, but then why are you arguing the political angles and conspiracy?
THAT is NOT science
and you've not been able to get any of the published studies retracted, changed or pulled. etc, so you are arguing from a very poor point with regard to the science
Who gets to define this?
again, you are arguing politics and semantics
SCIENCE is about SCIENCE
the argument in a scientific study is one from evidence, observation, measurement etc, not judgement of leadership
Also, when you say
it's pretty much all "best guesses" and to me, that's outside the realm of science
you again are saying that you are not scientifically literate
my point:
you are making an assumption (best guess) about a study while not being able to give specific details from the study that are wrong... and if you COULD do that, you would have it changed/retracted, etc
because scientists...
2B cont'd

Mar 10, 2015
@jeff cont'd
because scientists tend to get "points" for proving another scientist wrong
scientists compete to prove each other wrong... as noted by a famous scientist here:
https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

so your argument is nothing more than your ASSumption (or best guess based upon your hunch) whereas the study tries to extrapolate data from known observed/etc phenomenon

that is how the scientific method works, as you should know
that is how theories get power... their predictability

so, in conclusion:
most of your arguments are not only semantics, but political/religious and anti-science rhetoric as well as taken from denier sites (some almost verbatim - but that's not important)

IF you are a scientist, then you should be able to make an impact WITH SCIENCE
not political arguments
gut reactions
semantics
fear
or illogical diatribes like above

go get those studies retracted/changed
make your point
or follow the SCIENCE

Mar 10, 2015
Ok. I unfortunately have a sense of what I'm dealing with now. You've reduced me to religious and political straw man arguments and questioned the simple fact that I'm an environmental scientist. It's pointless for me to continue this debate.

Mar 10, 2015
religious and political straw man arguments
@jeff
No, YOU produced those arguments and are sticking with them, not i
... environmental scientist
Rule 37
links/proof/evidence or it didn't happen
... this debate
There hasn't been ANY DEBATE
you are NOT arguing with science
you are arguing with POLITICS, FEAR and stupidity!

and THAT Is my freakin POINT!

lets try this again
I will simplify it:
YOU made a CLAIM (conjecture) that is NOT supported by the SCIENCE

the SCIENCE, in the form of STUDIES is still valid and published at the links i left
there have been NO retractions/corrections of the studies

Your claims are that YOU found inconsistencies and are arguing that they are "best guesses" and that it is not science
forgetting that these same guesses/models are used in forensics and many OTHER sciences

BUT YOU GIVE NO EVIDENCE
and the studies still stand

who would YOU believe?
the BULK of scientists and studies or the few/single denier(s)?

Mar 10, 2015
Ok. I unfortunately have a sense of what I'm dealing with now. You've reduced me to religious and political straw man arguments and questioned the simple fact that I'm an environmental scientist. It's pointless for me to continue this debate.
@jeff
to make a long story short

try thinking about it like this:
if you were investigating a crime, would you take a suspect's word that he is innocent?
or would you investigate the facts and either validate the claims or debunk the suspect?

that is scientific as well

you are saying that you are correct
but you are also saying things that are counter to the BULK of the science out there

they are also POLITICAL comments (or religious... all based upon conspiracy theory and likely fear based- ALL without evidence)

it is far more logical to believe that the bulk of the trained scientists who are presenting evidence which i can find no fault with, than to believe your conjecture and claims sans evidence

Mar 11, 2015
jeffensley claimed
.. You've reduced me to religious and political straw man arguments and questioned the simple fact that I'm an environmental scientist
No that would NOT be possible if you were genuine than you couldn't be 'reduced' ie You couldn't be dissuaded as you would have sound physics to base your foundational arguments upon, so where are they ?

jeffensley added with relief
It's pointless for me to continue this debate
Sure if you continue to avoid clear issues, as an Environmental Scientist - did u get your qualification WITHOUT the necessary pre-requisites in Physics, if so tell me where please I would be prepared to pay as much as $20 for that piece of paper - was it recycled btw ?

Paper & degree ;-)

Captain_Stumpy correctly observed re your unfortunate naive & immature position
There hasn't been ANY DEBATE
you are NOT arguing with science
you are arguing with POLITICS, FEAR and stupidity!
Try to be smarter jeffensley, can u please ?

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