The Curse of the Wet: Mozambique's rural population has grappled with increasingly frequent flooding events over the past decade, with some regions suffering from multiple episodes.
Image: Mozambique Flood Extents (flooding); Bradfield Lyon IRI/Earth Institute, Columbia University; Rainfall data from Global Precipitation Climatology Center (GPCC) and IRI Data Library (drought)
In Brief
- Climate change caused by global warming will disrupt the livelihoods of millions of people, prompting many to move from their homelands.
- Here we examine three regions around the world that have already begun to suffer the effects of climate change, leading many to leave.
- Predicting exactly who will move and where they will go to is an impossibility, but leaders can implement policies to help alleviate the inevitable suffering.
Since the beginning of recorded time, climate-forced migrations have reshaped civilization. Four thousand years ago a prolonged drought and the resulting famine in Canaan drove Jacob and his sons to Egypt, setting the stage for the famous exodus led by Moses. Three millennia later a prolonged dry period and lack of grazing lands helped to push Mongol armies out of Central Asia as far west as Europe, where many settled and intermarried. And in the 20th century the American Dust Bowl, an ecological catastrophe precipitated by drought and compounded by bad land-management policies, displaced 3.5 million people from the Midwest.
Today this age-old story has a new twist. We are entering an era marked by rapid changes in climate brought on by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Anticipated changes include higher rainfall variability, greater frequency of extreme events (such as droughts and floods), sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and long-term shifts in temperature and precipitation—any of which can profoundly disrupt the ecosystems that supply our basic needs. In our more densely settled world, people may be forced from their homes in numbers never seen before.
This article was originally published with the title Casualties of Climate Change.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add CommentIn the article following this one in your magazine, on "Robo Scientists", you will find the following phrases (emphasis added by ME) :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... the ENTIRE scientic process: forming hypotheses, devising and carrying out EXPERIMENTS to TEST those hypotheses, interpreting the results and repeating the cycle until new knowledge is found."
"When SCIENTISTS follow the scientific method, they form hypotheses and then EXPERIMENTALLY test the DEDUCTIVE consequences of those hypotheses."
"[ The robot scientist ] EXPERIMENTALLY tests the consequences to see if the hypothesized facts are consistent with the OBSERVATIONS."
"... the notion of 'Occam's razor' - that all else being equal, a simpler hypothesis is more probable than a complex one."
"Like ALL scientific CLAIMS, [ the robot scientists's ] needed to be CONFIRMED."
"... automating science will be harder because EXPERIMENTATION takes place in the PHYSICAL world."
I, personally, found this article "interesting". It also comes closer to my "idealistic" view of how Science SHOULD work (it even mentions Karl Popper).
In this view, the output of (computer) MODELS form part of the HYPOTHESIS, not, repeat NOT (!) part of the DATA.
---
Compare this with your group of four mini-articles.
"We are entering an era marked by RAPID changes in climate BROUGHT ON BY MAN-MADE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS."
1) Where is the conditional clause (or three) merited by such a statement ?
2) When has there NOT been "rapid" climate changes, even if you limit yourself to the Holocene interglacial (the last 10,000 years) ?
"... the increase in climate-related catastrophes IS ALREADY A FACT."
1) The increase in the REPORTING of such catastrophes may be a "fact", but your ASSERTION is unjustified. For example, the earthquake in China that killed over 240,000 people in 1976 got MUCH less media coverage than the one in Haiti that killed over 220,000 a year ago.
2) Around 1900 the world's population passed 1 billion. It is now approaching 7 billion, and is projected to maybe reach 9 billion in the 2040s before it starts to (slowly) DECREASE.
Is it POSSIBLE that this will be a factor, AMONGST MANY OTHERS, in any future "mass migrations" being "on a scale never seen before" ?
Your articles contain phrases such as "models suggest" or "are projected to". These models are continually being modified as "improvements" (i.e. CORRECTIONS) are made to them. Why should be outputs of these models NOT be taken with a (large) pinch of salt ?
[ Page 2 ]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNB : "Climate" is usually defined as "averaged weather", with a MINIMUM integration period of 30 years. Your map of Mozambique talks of flooding events "over the past DECADE" ...
You chose, presumably because they are the "best" examples", to highlight the changes of higher rainfall variability, floods and droughts (= "extreme events"), sea-level rise, ocean acidification, "long-term" shifts in temperature and precipitation, and glacier melting.
---
For the rainfall variability, "long-term" shifts, and "exreme events" issues the question to answer is : Compared to WHAT ?
"Sudden" changes to the climate are believed to have accelerated the declines of the Mayan and Aztec civilisations. How much CO2 were human beings pumping into the atmosphere at the time ?
The EFFECTS of such changes NOW will be magnified by the size of the population, NOT by the size, speed or even the frequency of the events themselves (which are all currently well within the range of NATURAL climate change).
---
For sea-level rise, during the last glacial to inter-glacial transition, rises of over 1 METER per century occurred. During the Holocene, i.e. the last 10,000 years or so, sea-levels have both risen AND FALLEN.
In the last 150 years, sea-levels rose by about a foot (30cm), and are currently rising at about 3mm per year. Note that the number of people who died DIRECTLY as a result is ZERO ! Even if your "unlikely but possible" projection of a 2 meter rise by 2100 occurs, people will ADAPT to the change, just as they always have.
To reach even 1 meter, the rate of rise will need to accelerate ... A LOT ! In the last decade, satellite measurements show that it actually SLOWED DOWN compared to the last half of the 20th century.
---
[ start pedant ]
Regarding ocean "acidification", the ocean's pH is currently just over 8, i.e. it is ALKALINE. Any pH reduction can therefore be descibed as "reduced alkalinity", NOT "acidification".
[ end pedant ]
Corals have existed for several hundreds of millions of years, including times when CO2 levels were MUCH higher than today, and the oceans were logically "more acidic". They have survived both long-term climate change and catastrophic events (asteroid strikes etc.) during that time.
---
Glacier length is influenced by 2 main factors :
1) Historical precipitation at the TOP of the glacier
2) Current temperatures at the BOTTOM of the glacier
The delay between (1) and any subsequent changes depends on the topography and total length of the INDIVIDUAL glacier.
[ Page 3 ... Sorry, but you've REALLY annoyed me ... ]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobody is "denying" that temperatures rose by about 0.7 degrees (Celcius) between 1910 and 1998/2005. I am not even saying that this rise was NOT caused (at least partially) by "man-made greenhouse gas emissions".
I am simply asking is that you SHOW ME some of your "mountain of evidence", which in addition is often described as "robust", that PROVES (even if the criteria is only "beyond reasonable doubt") that GHG emissions were the ONLY (or even the MAIN) CAUSE of that temperature rise.
My previous post shows that I, and probably many other people, have serious questions about the "proofs" that YOU chose, presumably because they are the "best" available, for this series of mini-articles.
Please answer the following questions :
1) Why did temperatures go DOWN between 1940 and 1975 despite accelerating GHG emissions ?
2) Why did stratospheric temperatures STOP decreasing after 1996/1997, despite GHG emissions continuing to increase (approximately linear) ?
WITHOUT using ad-hoc excuses, after the fact, that I can counter using "Occam's razor".
Simply saying "we can't think of anything else it might be" is NOT what I would qualify as a "good" response. I call this "proof by lack of imagination", though the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy may also apply.
In the second half of the 19th century, Lord Kelvin, one of the most respected "authorities" in the world, insisted that it was "impossible" for the Earth to be more that 50 to 100 million years old, because he could not think of a CHEMICAL process that would allow the Sun to shine for longer that that.
It wasn't until the 1930s that the notion of NUCLEAR fusion allowed the confirmation of isotope dating of the Earth being over 4 billion years old.
If you use the principles described in your "Robo Scientist" article (see my first comment) to the subject of "CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC Climate Change", you may well be surprised by the results.
Don't forget the following corollaries while you are doing this :
1) The output of computer models form part of the HYPOTHESIS, not part of the DATA
2) Correlation is NOT the same as causation
3) Just because YOU cannot think of an alternative is NOT "proof" that no such alternative exists
4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas ... so is water vapour
"The climate" is a complex, chaotic, system. Assuming that people can "stop", "prevent" or "control" (in a PREDICTABLE way) climate change JUST by modulating man-made GHG emissions is hubris of the highest possible order.
to Mark-BLR - there is such axiom, that the past and the future in what that are interconnected a degree - that a part of problems which change of a level of Ocean concern also Aztecs, and, and climatic changes are already solved.. w.mammoths.narod.ru; the question consists that the Dynamic model particularly solves many problems connected with the past, accordingly and with the future, and definiteness is necessary for nobody
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat was as concise and cogent an argument against the present panic mongering that passes for "scientific discourse" as I have heard in a while.
Thanks.
With or without us this planet has always been changing and always will be changing. Any variations that have been induced by man are only a tiny footnote in the history of the planet. If you want stability go to the moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWay to go Mark BLR. A nice commentary of the lax scientific method in current global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI might add that there is an error in Arrhenius's original 1896 paper of showing that "More GHGs (CO2 or water vapor) causes more warming" as the current IPCC mantra says.
While it is true that the greenhouse effect increases as more CO2 is added to an unlimited supply of energy, it is also true that on Earth with a limited amount of energy photons coming in and an excess supply of unused GHGs (eg water in the ocean) we also have the situation where EVERY NIGHT, EVERY WINTER, while man spews out more CO2 we have COOLING.This is due to the limited number of photons available. THIS directly contradicts the idea that more CO2 causes more warming. Arrhenius should have concluded that with the excess GHGs in place, then "More Energy photons, not CO2, causes more Greenhouse warming effect". The rising and setting of the sun, daily demonstrates this conclusion. It daily demonstrates that it is the energy , not the CO2 level that causes warming (& cooling). All efforts at controlling the number of CO2 molecules are totally irrelevant since thare is such an excess naturally.
Then there is the idea of "feedback" causing more warming. The current global warming theory is that more CO2 causes more warming which results in more water vapor in the air which in turn causes more warming. BUT water vapor in the air is perfectly able to absorb a photon by itself without the presence of CO2. In fact since there is so much water vapor it will engage ALL of the absorbable photons at any given time with an excess left over as readily evident by the fact that water vapor still exists as water in the ocean. SO if ALL the absorbable photons are already in use, then when CO2 warming adds more water vapor there will be no available photons to be absorbed by the added water vapor. (simple proof is that it does not WARM when the humidity increases when it rains!) Hence there will be NO feedback, and man adding CO2 does not cause any feedback warming, and so Man does not cause global warming. Anthropogenic warming is a myth. A Poor application of science!
For a better explanation of the variation in energy and the number of photons available, see the paper "Gravity causes Climate Change" at www.scribd.com
If the computer models upon which most GW claims are based why don't you predict the weather next week? I don't believe the number of variables are all that different
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the UK it is actually a variation of the software that is used for weather prediction that is or was modied to predict global warming. They just use differnt data eg yearly temperatures vs hourly ones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBOTH have the deficiency that they do not include all forms of energy ie that which comes from gravity and hence potential energy. Since the gravity based variation is more long term then weather forecasters are better than global warmers at predicting the future.
BUT this does raise another issue. The graphic identifies that Mozambique has had more rain irregularities in the last decade. Same is true in Australia with flooding. My explanation for this is that since global warming ceased to increase at the same rate in 1998, then the reduced energy in the air results in the air being able to hold less water, hence it rains more often. It happens every night when water vapor "rains" out as morning dew when the temperature reduces. It also correlates with cyclone/hurricane intensity cycles. So it is true that warming increases hurricane intensity but it is due to more energy availability, not due to more CO2. Just as the lesser amount of energy now is responsible for the more rain.
Finally one other observation is that much of the temperature etc variation is blamed on variation in EL Nino and La Nina. The paper identified that the relative proximity of Jupiter and the variation in La Nina etc correlate timewise, and this decrease in potential energy, or increase in kinetic heat energy explains where La Nina etc get their energy from. They do not just create hot spots in the middle of the ocean. The energy has to come from somewhere. This theory makes it more predictable.
PS, Dieselpop1, the paper referenced above published in 2009 & again in Feb 2010, DID make the prediction that we would get warming early in the year (Russian Fires etc)and cooling after Oct 2010.(current cold winter). It also predicts a similar sequence for a warmer early winter in 2013-14, turning colder in January as Venus again repeats its coming closer then moving away sequence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt did this without the benefit of weather prediction software, which would be needed if the prediction were to be more detailed.
I agree. Rising sea levels are both an environmental AND social justice issue. We reported on it from the standpoint of the residents of Newtok, a small fishing community in Alaska. The effects of this climate phenomenon are alarming to say the least. You can see more at: http://unc.news21.com/index.php/climate-refugees.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLuca Semprini
www.poweringanation.org
Past changes were natural, but this one is man made? That should require a higher standard of evidence than is available. Drought is evidence of climate change? Isn't that aweather event?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the Dynamic model of the globe allows to analyse what changes have taken place on on a planet: when this planet was in other System of planets (many millions years) I a stage - there could not be no changes at all; during II stage (20 - 50 days) - have proceeded the most scale tectonic changes; further during III stage (~ 750 thousand years) Ms (a "firm" environment of a planet)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrepeatedly changed a position (concerning an axis of rotation of a nucleus of a planet) - a major factor why the level of Ocean in limits (1400 м) changed; during IV stage there was a downturn of a level of Ocean in limits (15 м) in time it makes (~ 15 thousand years) according to DM has proved - what factors stabilize now a level of Ocean and why in recent times these factors were not;
thus DM has proved specificity of changes accordingly particularly each stage, now does not represent problems these processes to simulate, presence of the software will allow to show these changes, and the most important to harmonize practical activities to forthcoming changes in the near future; at the same time the working Static model of the globe shows total a consequence [changes] during a presence of the Earth in an orbit of the Sun - this model allows to pull out any event from the general context and any way to treat it; in summary - there is a country (where many states), in each states the academic establishments, scientifically research institutes, educational institutions, at last forums - where events of the past on a planet are considered and the structure of the Earth - hence arises a question why this quantity of scientists the Static model quite arranges; Thus an axiom, that events of the past, the present and the future in what that degrees are interconnected them it is necessary to consider - only in the general context
You post is very interesting but hard to follow. Might I humbly suggest that you either post in your original language or hire a translator? If you are using an internet translation site, please understand that they generally don't work very well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto bucketofsquid - more details on the site-.. w.mammoths.narod.ru - this site considers events in the past accordingly stages I - IV;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso analogy - it is theoretically possible to assert, that it is possible to compress some millions semiconductors and we shall have after a while the processor - but practically it is a Utopia; theoretically to assert, that the planet the Earth was formed in Solar system and that the life on this planet has arisen spontaneously is equivalently what to continue to repeat obstinately that the processor it is possible to receive from under press;
complexity of a theme " Dynamic model of the globe " consists that this theme adjoins to very wide spectrum of sciences; for given time it is necessary to prove theoretically (not in general) and particularly what changes accordingly stages are absurd or practically impossible
from the point of view of readers which possess theoretical knowledge and practical skills and which are interested in real events in the past on a planet, instead of invented
For those not familiar with the term "Gish Gallop", Mark's post is a good example. Basically, the strategy is to overwhelm with a mish-mash of truths (relevant and irrelevant), half-truths, and outright fabrications.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance,
"2) Correlation is NOT the same as causation"
is true, but it also a half-truth in that as far as AGW is concerned, there is a theory based on physical laws of nature for explaining the causes as well as the observed correlations which fit the theory.
What do Lord Kelvin's personal beliefs (accurately presented or not) about the age of the sun have to do with CO2 interacting with the energy the earth emits and not with the energy the sun emits?
Anyone with a university freshmen level understanding of chemistry understands that acidification and reducing alkalinity mean exactly the same thing.
"SHOW ME some of your "mountain of evidence", "
It takes minutes to find some if you search. There are lots of studies on ocean heat content, atmospheric temperatures, etc. There are also plenty of textbooks on thermodynamics, and the spectroscopic properties of CO2 are known very well. There is the well-known observed rise in CO2, and the isotopic change in the CO2 identifies the extra as coming from fossil fuels. You can point an IR sensor down from space and see a drop in IR emissions from the earth, and you can point one up from the surface and see an increase. That's the tip-of-the-iceberg, or mountain in this case. To keep claiming there is no evidence is either a display of blind ignorance, or an outright fabrication.
"2) When has there NOT been "rapid" climate changes, even if you limit yourself to the Holocene interglacial (the last 10,000 years) ?"
Well, let's see,
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png
as rapid as what has occurred in the last 100 years within the last 10,000? Umm, the change in the last 100 years is unprecedented.
Sea level rise:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
(If you object to wiki links, feel free to read the list of references and let us know what the author got wrong.)
So, what Mark is saying is that he doesn't expect the rate of ice sheet melting to increase as the temperature rises. Hmm.
JDoddsGW,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are very confused. I'll respond to one of your comments not from an alternate universe with different laws of physics.
"My explanation for this is that since global warming ceased to increase at the same rate in 1998, then the reduced energy in the air results in the air being able to hold less water, hence it rains more often."
So, not that 10-12 years makes for a good interval to determine a climate trend, but even your statement that the rate of increase has decreased does not mean that there has been a reduction in the temperature or energy content of the atmosphere. The rate of increase declining means that it is still increasing, just not as fast; that does not at all mean that the temperature/energy content has reduced. You then follow this with an assumption that it takes at least 12 years to rain out an excess of water from the air, based on a reduction of temperature that hasn't even happened. Does that not sound absurd even to you?
My point about Lord Kelvin was that he was such a highly regarded "expert" that many people saw his position as "proof" that Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection could not POSSIBLY be true because it required MANY millions of years to work. It was a concrete example of the "argument to authority" fallacy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilarly, when other people say "The IPCC says that ...", it does NOT constitute "proof" of anything.
---
In my "gallop", I said "CO2 is a greenhouse gas".
The fact that increasing CO2 levels should lead to increased surface temperatures, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, is not in question (by me, anyway).
The questions that still remain to be answered include "HOW MUCH will temperatures rise (given that all other things are NOT equal in the real world) ?" and "What makes you believe that the results WILL DEFINITELY be CATASTROPHIC ?".
---
In your link about Holecene temperatures, it states :
"... this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years."
and
"The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot."
I repeat, I have not seen any CONCRETE evidence to support the ASSERTION that the current warming, or any other example of "extreme weather events", can be described as "unprecedented".
We will discuss the example of "evidence" THAT YOU CHOSE around 2150.
---
Regarding your sea-level rise link, I have no objection to Wikipedia links, their "dry scientific facts" pages are usually pretty accurate.
On that page, there is a "Post-Glacial" graph. How do the various projected rises to 2100 compare to the rates between 15 and 8 thousand years ago (kya) ?
The University of Colorado has a copy of the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite data, at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/, which shows a SLOWER rate of rise from 2006. Yes, this is "cherry picking", but I have yet to see any EMPIRICAL evidence that the CURRENT rate of sea-level rise is ACCELERATING, as would be required for even a 1 meter rise by 2100.
---
Finally, please don't put words in my mouth.
I have no idea how the RATE of GLOBAL ice sheet melting would react to rising temperatures by 2100. For example, most climate models "predict" that increased precipitation over Antarctica (as snow !) will result in a DROP of global sea-levels THREE TIMES that of the RISE from the melting of Greenland ice sheet.
I am capable of saying "I do not know", and also of requesting supporting evidence for ASSERTIONS made by other people. Are you ?
Regarding the authors' "Policy Solutions".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) "Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safe levels"
- Who gets to decide what the "safe" levels are ?
- Who gets to ENFORCE those levels ?
2) "Invest in disaster management risk ..."
- Under what conditions is this a BAD idea ?
3) "Recognise that some migration will be inevitable ..."
- Agreed. Earthquakes and tsunamis happen, volcanos erupt, dictators get overthrown, ...
4) "Establish binding commitments to ensure adaptation funding reaches the people who need it most"
- Which countries are going to sign ANY treaty with GENUINELY binding commitments ?
- Again, who gets to ENFORCE these "binding" commitments ?
- Historically, which similar programs have EVER resulted in funds going to "the people who need it most" ? Look up "Iraq oil for food program", for example.
5) "Strengthen international institutions to protect the rights of those displaced by climate change"
- Which "international institutions" are you talking about, EXACTLY ?
- What "rights" are you talking about, EXACTLY ?
- How, EXACTLY, will those institutions go about "protecting" those rights from whoever they decide is "violating" them ?
My response- Chris, you seem to keep trying to imply that those who support the theory that human increases in CO2 are causing an imminent disaster for humanity are scientifically proven and generally accepted and that is clearly not true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile there is probably a general agreement that increasing GHG’s will warm the planet, there is definitely no consensus regarding:
1. The rate of any warming
2. The impact of any warming to humanity overall or to specific regional areas
3. The policies that individual nations are appropriate to enact as a result of the scientific information.
What is also indisputably true is that CO2 levels will not peak for decades and that they will not come down for many decades after they peak. This being an undisputed fact from everyone who has studied the issue, it is also undisputed that humans will have to live with a climate effected by higher CO2 levels for many decades into the future.
It is my opinion that the sensible solution is the long term attention on infrastructure to protect humans from variable weather. I would be interested in how you would justify any alternate policy.
I was going to leave this article alone because Mark-BLR pretty much hit the nail on the head and applied the scientific method to which I would have thought would not be contested. Then you decided to post what you thought to be 'against' his point and you did sounded quite smug. In Mark-BLR's own words 'Sorry but you really made me mad'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you possibly construe that the original post denies GHG to cause an increase in temperature? In fact a seperate form of GHG is pointed out as well (a lesser known one) and both are attributed to the current warm up.
Where did you read in the post that seas aren't rising? It was actually pointed out and gave the correct rates over several decades to include today.
I am actually angry that you would argu semantics instead of the actual point. I agree with you that lower alkalinity does add to acidification but that was not the point. That was actually far from it. The point was the ecosystems of the water being far heartier than the scare mongers give them credit.
Its posts like yours that really get me going because you read only what you wanted and can't compete with basic science. You instead interject with a biased science and write like a teenager who thinks he's smarter than his parents. Did you actually read and understand the post and where the writer was coming from before you typed? Mark-BLR never disputed the points you made. He in fact wrote that temps were rising, the sea level was rising and then gave creedence to what the IPCC has said as far as climate science and timeframes. He merely is refuting the scare tactics with scientific data.
Now I dare you to say that his science is wrong and yours is right because big oil wrote all the studies he read. That is actually what I am expecting from you. The smugness of your voidless argument makes you look absolutely foolish and its no wonder that someone who claims to look at science but fails to read objectively would write what you did. Just so you are aware, it is clear that Mark-BLR never disputed the main points of what you think you are trying to prove.
And to show how dumb it is to fight semantics I submit the following from an earlier post of your own;
'Basically, the strategy is to overwhelm with a mish-mash of truths (relevant and irrelevant), half-truths, and outright fabrications.'
And you lived up to it brilliantly. Now read for content before you post.
Global warming pumped enough energy into hurricane Katrina to raise sea level locally enough to flood New Orleans. Such sea-level rises will kill thousands and drive a lot more to migrate within the next few years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark-BLR
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are so naive. SCIAM ceased being a serious scientific journal years ago. It is merely now as purveyor of sci-porn.
Hats off to you for trying to find science on this website, but you won't. Science, like Elvis left the building long ago. I only check out this website from time to time when I need a good laugh.
Mark-BLR
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh... and wait for Trent1492 to log in after he wakes up from sleeping on the couch in his Mom's basement. He will use up every available one and zero quoting inane and misguided pseudo scientific socialist propganda as the gospel of his new religion.
SCIAM and it's disiples; like new age watermelons... green on the outside, red on the inside and totally lacking in seed.
Well Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would justify taking action to mitigate climate change in the same way I would if 19 of 20 electricians informed me that there was a problem in my house wiring that was likely to start a fire someday. I would schedule the repair even if work could not be started immediately; you would advocate stocking up on buckets.
"The point was the ecosystems of the water being far heartier than the scare mongers give them credit."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Because I don't see that written anywhere in Mark's post. In fact, I don't see that it makes any points; it appears to be designed to cast doubt in a variety of barely tangible ways. If it wasn't important to Mark, why did he write it?
Oh, you mean this:
"Corals have existed for several hundreds of millions of years, ..."
Actually, there have been periods of almost 100 million years where there are no corals in the fossil record. Most recently went extinct about 40 million years ago. Here is an easy-to-read summary.
http://www.globalreefproject.com/coral-reef-history.php
Perhaps we should talk about foraminifera (forams). There are two things important about these guys: 1) they form a big part of the foundation of the oceanic food web, 2) there are families which will cease to exist (unless they can live without their shells) by sometime around 2050 under the current rate of ocean acidification.
Was there something specific I said that you think I got wrong?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, what is a "voidless argument"? Would that be an argument without holes?
Unfortunately comments on a theme " Casualties of Climate Change... it some kind of attempt to take out of events of the past on a planet only the fact of change of a level of Ocean; the Dynamic model has proved why, and what changes in the past on a planet were accompanied by downturn of a level of Ocean in limits (1400 м), for given time this problem is not so actual there is more a prominent aspect - turn
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMs (a firm environment of a planet) in a stationary position; thus in a zone of a polar circle many countries get and practically present homo sapiens this most unadapted essence - overcome thousand kilometers in deadlines it fishermen and hunters and what will do in a zone of an ice dome other millions of the population which has no can only as to survive in conditions of the wild nature remains a riddle
I wouldn't go QUITE that far ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI actually subscribe to the paper magazine, mostly for the cosmology / astronomy articles, which I personally find both interesting and thought-provoking. Some even include statements saying that the lack of "falsifiable predictions" means that SOME hypotheses, e.g. string theory, are considered by some physicists as being not really "scientific".
The "Anti-Gravity" and "Skeptic" pages are often ENTERTAINING (not necessarily "scientific" ...) as well.
The "Arrrgggghhhh !!!" thing in this issue was that it actually had an article (the "Robo Scientist" one) with an accurate description of "The Scientific Method" IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING this series of mini-articles, which I would describe as "political advocacy" rather than "sci-porn".
The SciAm editors therefore know that the abstract concept known as "The Scientific Method" does in fact still exist. If they get enough negative feedback from their comments pages it is always POSSIBLE that they will try applying it to the (C)AGW hypothesis in a genuinely "scientific" way, conditional qualifiers and all.
Tomorrow ? No.
Eventually ? I really don't know ... I can always hope !
This article has been noticed by WUWT, in the comments of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/19/scientific-american-still-running-false-warming-story/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---
The real goal of ALL magazines, not just SciAm, is the following : To sell as many copies as possible.
If SciAm has a "Why have we lost so many subscribers in the last 10/20/30 years ?!?" team, the WUWT comments include indications of why SOME people have become EX-subscribers.
NB : This comment probably does not conform with your posting rules (minimum : it's slightly off-topic). Just make sure you only delete it (or the part following "---" ?) AFTER informing the members of the above (hypothetical) team about the WUWT blog post.
Someone on this comment thread has a lot of time on their hands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am so glad you turned your anger into such a cogent response. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs has been noted by another commenter, this thread may contain an example of the "Gish Gallop" rhetorical technique, a common tactic of those presenting 'male bovine waste products' as arguments. See the explanation at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this