Image: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Outside Alaska's largest city, where wildlife is more common than pigeons, locals bearing field glasses turn out every year to watch blazingly white trumpeter swans stop to feed on their way south for the winter.
The swans, famed for their French horn call and immortalized by author E.B. White, were nearly hunted to extinction in much of the United States and Canada by the late 1800s for their meat, feathers, down and quills.
Now, North America's largest wild fowl may be one of the few good-news stories of global warming - at least for the short term.
Trumpeters, which reach 38 pounds with an 8-foot wingspan, need a long summer to raise young to a size where they can keep up with the flock on the thousand-plus-mile journey to ice-free ponds in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon.
A warming climate is helping, expanding the swans' summer range northward into habitat never before used in their ancestral boreal forest, allowing populations to flourish, according to new study by Alaska scientists.
As spring arrives earlier in Alaska and winter comes later, the season lengthens for breeding, hatching and cygnet rearing, all advantageous to the birds, which need at the minimum 145 ice-free days, according to the study, led by Joshua Schmidt of the National Park Service and published in the December issue of the journal Wildlife Biology. In comparison, the tundra swan, a smaller and more-abundant species distinguished by a yellow dot above its black bill, needs about 100 days.
Trumpeter swans breed from central interior Alaska to the southeast coast and north to the Brooks Range in forested ponds and lakes. Since the mid-20th century, the population has recovered to roughly 25,000 swans. Prohibitions against hunting and attention to protection and food supply in winter feeding grounds have aided the surge. Small remnant populations of non-migratory trumpeters live year round in isolated spots of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota and Wisconsin, including Yellowstone National Park and Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the setting for White's affectionate portrayal of the resourceful, voiceless Louis in "Trumpet of the Swan."
Two years ago, a team of Alaska scientists confirmed that trumpeter pairs have been steadily increasing since at least the 1960s. The team found that swans have benefited from higher temperatures associated with warming atmosphere and oceans. There are fewer trumpeter swans in northern Alaska than in the southern half. But those in the northern population, between the Alaska and Brooks ranges and including the Yukon River basin, are increasing faster than in the southern portion, the researchers found.
New research by the National Park Service team has found the swans have expanded their range northward since 1968 into areas never before used as breeding habitat - even before hunting killed off much of the population. That shift, researchers concluded, is likely linked to the rising temperatures of the past hundred years.
The Arctic has a history of amplifying global temperature changes, warming or cooling faster than the rest of the planet. Recent trends are no exception: While the globe on average has warmed 0.6 degrees Celsius compared to historic norms, the Arctic has jumped 1.5 degrees Celsius, with some areas approaching 3 degrees Celsius warmer. Higher spring temperatures are causing the earlier snowmelt, and the timing of that melt influences the warming of the atmosphere.
Reduction of the snow cover in the region over those days, researchers found, magnified the heating effect three times.
"We found a direct link between temperature and the occupancy of breeding trumpeter swans in Alaska," said Schmidt, a wildlife biologist and data manager for the Park Service's Central Alaska Network. "In warmer periods, there are more pairs observed occupying the summer breeding habitat than in colder periods." With rising temperatures, the swans are gaining more habitat than they are losing, he added. They can now use thousands of acres for breeding that in colder eras were inaccessible.
See what we're tweeting about
49 Comments
Add CommentMy goodness... Hell has frozen over. (inverse pun)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American actually posted a story about a positive benefit of a warming world.
Unless of course they believe that these swans are a scourge upon the earth. Then this story would be in line with every other piece on global warming err... climate change.
@Blah,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you will find that there are few positive stories on climate change because the negative consequences outweigh the positives. I am happy you accept the reality of human induced climate change. You do accept it right? Because other wise your comments on this article would reveal you to be disingenuous.
Blah Says: Then this story would be in line with every other piece on global warming err... climate change.
Trent Says: Please tell me you are not one of those lemmings who uncritically accepts the just so story that there has been a change from global warming to climate change. Tell me, you are not that gullible.
If you are contemplate this Google Scholar search for articles between 1959-1980.
Oops! Search results:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&num=20&q=climate+change&btnG=Search&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=bio&as_subj=chm&as_subj=eng&as_subj=phy&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=1959&as_yhi=1980&as_vis=0
Global warming, whether caused or accelerated by humans, is CHANGE. Change is what created us. Change means that some will win and some will lose. Places that were not viable for humans to live will become productive. Places where people live now will be abandoned. It has happened over and over throughout the history of earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaucets Says:Paces where people live now will be abandoned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Tell me, where do you plan on putting those billions of people?
Faucets Says: It has happened over and over throughout the history of earth.
Trent Says: Can you tell me how New York did 3 billion years ago when it last had to abandoned? Oh, wait...
Life is, in the vein that the Buddha said, suffering. What do YOU "plan" to do with the 7 billion people already living on earth. I don't have any plans because the entire process is out of my hands. The juggernaut of the modern world is out of control and cannot be reigned in by good intentions. The driverless locomotive of our collective fate will charge on until it hits a brick wall. Sad but true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaucets Says: Life is, in the vein that the Buddha said, suffering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: How does Buddha handle unnecessary suffering caused at the negligent hands of others?
Until you can give to me a set of RAW data from appropriately placed and calibrated weather stations with uncorrected/uncorrelated data over the period in question. "We lost it", or "you won't understand it" doesn't cut mustard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAND
Until you can develop a global thermal model that will at minimum predict the past, let alone the future, with a statistical significance of at least 95%
AND
Until you can show a statistically significant shift in temperature that correlates with human activity outside the normal shifts in temperature we have experienced in earths history. (I.e. North America has been a tropical paradise and an ice flow in the past)
AND
Even if you could prove that the earth is warming, it is caused by humans, and that we can accurately characterize cause and effect by models... (Of which I have my doubts in all three cases) What are you going to do about it anyway? Squat, Nothing, Nada. You can hope all you want that evil humans never evolved, but guess what we did. And we will continue to evolve to meet the conditions.
AND one more item that forgot to add above...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can show a departure of earth's situation from control conditions, say Mars. Which has been warming too, interestingly enough. (I don't believe that the rovers have added too much carbon or otherwise impacted the delicate balance there.)
AND
Ensure that the information is flowing from unbiased sources. See Climategate I and Climategate II for the impeccable unbiased credentials here.
Vast areas of the earths land mass that were previously fertile & teeming with life during hotter periods are now deserts. Increased precipitation from warmer climate is more likely to be good for life. Even today, many more people die from cold than heat. Warm is much better than cold. Humans have & will experienced both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlah Says: Until you can give to me a set of RAW data from appropriately placed and calibrated weather stations with uncorrected/uncorrelated data over the period in question. "We lost it", or "you won't understand it" doesn't cut mustard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Here you go:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/
Blah Says: Says: Until you can develop a global thermal model that will at minimum predict the past,...
Trent Says: Here you go:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8.html
Blah Says: "...with a statistical significance of at least 95%"
Trent Says: What does that mean in this context? What statistical test for what using what tests?
Blah Says: Until you can show a statistically significant shift in temperature that correlates with human activity outside the normal shifts in temperature we have experienced in earths history.
Trent Says: Logic Fail. Just because climate has changed in the past for one reason does not mean it can not change for another. Most adults in life recognize that the same phenomena can have different causes.
Blah Says: Even if you could prove that the earth is warming,...
Trent Says: It is warming.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Blah Says: ...it is caused by humans...
Trent Says: It is:
The Human Finger Prints of Global Warming:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
Blah Says: What are you going to do about it anyway?
Trent Says: Use alternative source of energy and conserve. Duh.
Blah Says: You can hope all you want that evil humans never evolved, but guess what we did. And we will continue to evolve to meet the conditions.
Trent Says: Tell me more about how you expect the denizens of cities to suddenly sprout gills as the seas swamps their cities.
Blah Says: You can show a departure of earth's situation from control conditions, say Mars. Which has been warming too,...
Trent Says: False:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm
You are aware we can monitor the Sun's output? It is called the total solar irradiance and it has not moved upwards in decades and has in fact declined slightly.
@ Blah,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that I have answered your questions it is my turn.
Can you please explain to me how over a century ago a Swedish scientist using nothing more than pen and paper could predict a CO2 induced global warming with the following characteristics?
1. Nights warming faster than days.
2. Summer warming faster than Winters.
3. The Arctic warming faster than the rest of the globe.
4. The Arctic warms faster than Antarctica
How is it that a model constructed with pen and paper could get so much right if you think the geophysicists are wrong?
Nostradamus too? If enough people make enough predictions, sooner or later, some will get it right. how about the thousands, like many of today's preachers, who in the end are found to be wrong?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle Says: If enough people make enough predictions, sooner or later, some will get it right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSvante Arrhenius the first Noble Prize recipient in chemistry did not pull those predictions out of a top hat. He based those predictions on basic physics and laborious calculations done with pen and paper.
You really are ignorant that the science is thoroughly grounded in well established physics.
Allow me to demonstrate just one example of Svante Arrhenius labors:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nsdl.org/archives/onramp/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n4.Arrhenius1896.pdf
"In order to obtain values for the whole earth, I have copied values from Dr. Buchan's charts of the mean temperatures at different places every month, the mean temperature in every district that is contained between the two parallels differing by 10 and two meridians differing by 20 degrees. The humidity has not yet been sufficiently examined for the whole earth; and I have therefore collected a great many measurements of the relative humidity at different places (about 780) on the earth and marked them down in maps of the world and thereafter estimated the mean value for every district. These quantities I have tabulated for the four seasons..."
And on and on. Yet you think he did some mighty magic trick which by sheer coincidence he got right. Maybe I should stop calling you a denier and start referring to you as a coincidenalist.
I guess we'll keep going on with this little song and dance for as long as the fossil fuel industry thinks it can distort the science and get away with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously Trent, have you found out where the deniers' disconnect from reality happens? If there was a solid scientific case against Anthropogenic Global Warming, they would have at least one "smoking gun" to bring to the debate, but instead, all we get is a bunch of incoherent babbling about objections to the conclusions of climate science that resemble the "kitchen sink" approach.
I ask them every time, and I get no answer...what evidence did they use to decide that humans aren't jacking with the climate? Where's the scientific paper(s) that prove their case? Which one of these OBSERVED FACTS do they dismiss in order to side with the "skeptics"?
- CO2 traps heat and we've observed increasing absorption of outgoing radiation and increasing re-emittance of longwave radiation from the atmosphere as CO2 concentrations increase.
- The increasing absorption and re-emittance has caused the Earth to retain an extra 1.7 W/m2. This has been observed and cannot denied.
- CO2 concentrations have increased %40 in the past 150 years, the fastest increase in the geologic record. There is no other plausible explanation for this; the concentration starts rising soon after the Industrial Revolution, there are no plausible natural sources for this carbon, and the added CO2 has the isotropic signature linking it directly to fossil fuels.
- A %100 increase of CO2 concentrations above the pre-industrial level will cause the Earth's global average temperature to increase 2C - 4.5C with a most likely value of 3C (climate sensitivity). This is backed up by ice cores, sediment cores, tree rings, the temperature record, glacial deposits and a whole host of other lines of evidence. Regardless, even if the Earth's climate sensitivity is only 2C, that still means we need to start cutting emissions NOW.
- The pH of the world's oceans is dropping because the concentration of carbonic acid is increasing. The carbon in the oceans is also increasingly from fossil fuels. The implications of lower ocean pH might just be scarrier than man-made climate disruption.
So I don't know, Trent...are they even connected to reality enough to begin with to make finding the disconnect even possible?
@Sault,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think their disconnect from reality happened about the time they first picked up a Ayn Rand novel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sault,
You want to see some fun? Remember that fake $100,000 bet Poker Player always makes? Well, I know a guy who was willing to take him up on it and so I sent Poker Player over to a Deltoid open thread. Much hilarity ensues.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fdeltoid+%28Deltoid%29
Take a look at the thread at and about #243 where Poker Player shows up. They are one erudite and merciless bunch over there. You know when *John Mashey gives you a dressing down that you have just crossed the line.
Here are a few gems:
From Frank:
To summarize pokerplyer's 'arguments':
1.Climate models are wrong and global warming is a scam!
2.Because I say I am an "aerospace engineer"!
3.I mean, I'm a "mechanical engineering undergrad" with a "master in economics and finance"!
4. And, even if climate models are right, global warming may not be catastrophic!
5.And even if global warming may be catastrophic, climate legislation will not help!
6.And even if climate legislation will help, I refuse to support it, because it's the poor nations' fault that they can't handle climate change!
7. I demand that you accept this bet on future weather conditions set by me!
8.However, I refuse to accept any bets on future weather conditions set by you!
9. Did I say I'm an "aerospace engineer"?
From Bill:
Pontifical nonsense from the latest Dunning-Kruger poster boy who cannot distinguish weather from climate, and holds blinkered selfishness to be the supreme human virtue.
It is you who has not demonstrated that he has even managed to comprehend the most basic of arguments, you who cannot distinguish between a trend and noisy fluctuations, you who has over-inflated your credentials - such as they are - like some ridiculous bedraggled little peacock and then backed down the moment you realized someone might be in a position to call you on them, you who believes that your dreary hubris somehow trumps the facts painstakingly assembled by those who actually possess qualifications and expertise in these fields, and you who, in the face of all evidence to the contrary assembled by those who actually know what they're talking about, simply re-asserts his original position regardless.
In short, you are the apotheosis of everything that is wrong with the entire Denier camp.
Oh, and your conception of foreign policy is a species of nationalist sociopathy, but, sadly, that's now so common in the US that it's barely noteworthy.
You, sir, are a joke.
Professor S Arrhenius & his peers did a remarkable job in increasing mankind’s understanding of the physical world. The document you referenced is compelling reading for anyone interested in the history of science & the scientific method. A pity we do not have the same diligence & devotion to truth in much of the climate science evident today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis references to carbonic acid & water vapour & their effect on temperature absorption & retention would have been cutting edge in his day & many of his conclusions are still valid. He did not have the remarkable tools & powers of observation at his disposal that science has today & yet we have much trash science. If modern science came out with withering condemnation of the fraud being perpetrated on the public & taxpayers as evidenced by the email scandals instead of defending & protecting these fraudsters, or condemned the head of the IPCC for acts of unscientific utterances like his claim that mankind was causing tsunamis or his crime of omission where he knew the data on glacial melt in the Himalayas was not peer reviewed scientific fact but based on some students paper yet let the claims stand until they were exposed by others, then I & many people like me would be more willing to take scientific pronouncements at face value Unfortunately, that is not the case. I believe the reasons are mostly financial, in the quest for research dollars that are almost exclusively only available to believers, adverse findings are glossed over or even apologised for & minimised by even their discoverers for fear of being seen to be off side. Two examples: The discovery that living plants give off considerable quantities of methane, not related to decay, swamps etc. No new research on it despite the ramifications & the more recent discovery announced in SIAM a few days ago about the Criegee biradicals that break down pollution. The researchers were at pains to minimise the possible consequences. Climate science is corrupt.
"CLIMATEGATE" was a total nothingburger of a story and the fact that you keep parroting it means you either don't know anything or you are willfully misleading people on these boards:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/23/375268/the-real-climategate-scandals-are-piling-up/
Either get informed or stay out of the debate and let the grownups handle the REAL problems facing the 21st Century.
You absolutely confirm my contention every time you defend the indefensible. I do not need others to tell me how to interpret those emails. Keep it up. Eventually the lies & deceit will overwhelm those who propagate & defend them. What about your buddy does he defend them too? Certainly do not recall seeing him condemn them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTranslation:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No proof will ever convince me! I don't need any proof because I just KNOW, deep down in my heart, that I'm right and you're wrong. Even though there's been 9 independent investigations and ALL of them determined that the world's climate scientists had done NOTHING wrong, I don't care! You see, those climate scientists are a bunch of socialist hippies because...because the angry man on the TV/talk radio/blog said so! And the angry man knows more about climate science than actual climate scientists...because they're a bunch of commie pinko socialists, you know?"
Well, if you're not even interested in LOOKING at the evidence, why are you even here trying to debate anything? Because not debating in good faith is not debating at all.
Sault,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey come here out of emotion (fear and disgust). It has been shown that deniers/conservatives have a larger amygala (region linked with emotion, fight or flight response). Whereas, non-deniers/liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex (seat of reasoning, monitoring uncertainty , understanding complexity, analyzing conflicting information).
They want those in power to keep their power (Exxon, BP, etc). Don't upset the structure of society.
See Ryota Kanai.
The GHCN is the best we have but of course you are well aware of the issues in the dataset. Station location issues, station microclimate issues, changes in instrumentation, doesn't correlate with data from satellite temp data, (AMSU-AQUA). The fact that it needs to be corrected/homogenized...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the models? How does one explain that the bulk of land based and satellite based data shows a 0.25 - 0.5 rate of warming compared to that predicted by the IPCC AR4?
No there is no logic fail... Can you prove a cause effect relationship of human activity to warming that is statistically significantly outside the normal variations caused by oceanic cycles, solar cycles, or longer term cycles such as orbital mechanics, earth axis wobble?
You say the earth is warming, then provide a graph over the last 200 years that varies by +/- 0.4C? Lets zoom out a bit... for the last 20,000 years we have been in this similar band of temperatures! Lets zoom out further 400,000 years and we find variation of +/- 6C (Vostok Ice Cores) The last 200 years is .05% of that time. Yep, and I predict for the next 6 months the northern hemisphere will also show warming. (Easy when I limit the window)
Regarding the nice flourish of "gills" and "swamped cities..." There may just be enough time for us to evolve gills by the time the water rises... We could walk to safety over the centuries it will take. You could decide to have a baby, let it live a full life, and then die a ripe old age before their life would be in danger of oceanic flooding. Take an example today... Florence Italy, anyone you know die due solely to the sinking city?
Regarding Mars... just trying to help you find a control for your thesis. Yes, I am keenly aware of the ability to measure solar output... I have used solar telescopes, I have worked at a planetarium, I build satellites for a living...
And in closing:
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." -- Stephen Schneider, from Stanford, quoted in Discover Magazine
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... -- former Vice President Al Gore in an interview with Grist Magazine
I have the evidence. It is in the emails.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRan out of room...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas the world cooled over the last 10 years? Yes
Has the world warmed over the last 200 years? Yes
Has the world warmed and cooled over the last 400k years but much larger swings? Yes
Has the globe been completely covered in ice? Yes.
Has the globe been completely bereft of ice? Yes.
Will the temperature continue to change? Yes.
I hope it continues to change as that would mean our Sun is still sending energy our way. If not we would begin to assume a temperature of a few degrees kelvin.
I guess, all I can say in advice is not to oversell it or cry wolf. Good luck!
Once again I have to go off topic in order to express my exasperation with a blog under the SIAM banner. After my previous complaint about bloggers on SCIAM inviting comment but in fact blocking it, things did improve but again we have the arrogance of a blogger who thinks he knows it all. Two days ago there was a lively discussion on :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/evo-eco-lab/2012/01/16/ncse-picks-fight-against-climate-science-deniers/
The blogger, Kevin Zelnio, objected when he found many of the posts ran counter to his beliefs. First there was a condecending post from him offering to educate us at a later date, he was too busy at the moment. Later he shut comments down, claiming his blog was being spamed. In his previous blog: Mistruths, Insults from the Copyright Lobby Over HR 3699 he was in efect deploring the censorship implied in the bill. This kid is still wet behind the ears as a quick look at his twitter site shows. His condecending attitude & hissy fit when posters disagree with him is insufferable. Particularly to people twice his age who have seen many snake oil salesmen & prophets of doom come & go over their long lives
This is a typical example of the blocking of counter ideas as envisaged in the subject matter of the blog.
Before I get properly started a blatant paradox that Blah has tangled himself up in needs to be highlighted. On one hand Blah wrongly claims that Earth has been cooling for 10 years. Yet, in a very next sentence he claims that the temperature record is unreliable. He can claim one or the other but he can not logically claim both. Either the temperature record is reliable or it is not. You can not talk about warming or cooling trends if you think the record is unreliable. To do so makes you look like a disingenuous ideologue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlah Says: GHCN is the best we have but of course you are well aware of the issues in the dataset.
Trent Says: I am well of the manufactured controversies that have no substance when submitted to scientific controversy. Funny how that works.
Blah Says: ..., doesn't correlate with data from satellite temp data,...
Trent Says: The satellite data shows a warming trend too and it keeps a track with all the other data set. You just like to make things up.
Blah Says: The fact that it needs to be corrected/homogenized...
Trent Says: unhomogenized and uncorrected data show a warming trend too. I see you are still making things up here.
Blah Says: Regarding the models? How does one explain that the bulk of land based and satellite based data shows a 0.25 - 0.5 rate of warming compared to that predicted by the IPCC AR4?
Trent Says: You are still weaving a fantasy here. The fact is that the 80's were warmer than the 70's, the 90's warmer than the 80's, and the 2000's were warmer than the 90's. That is a fact:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
From Nasa:
"The year 2011 is the 9th warmest in the GISS analysis. Nine of the ten warmest years are in the 21st century, the only exception being 1998, which was warmed by the strongest El Niño of the past century."
Further the models and observations match:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1-figure-1.html
Blah Says: No there is no logic fail...
Trent Says: Simple assertions do not a argument make. The logic is that the same phenomena can have different causes. You are in denial of this logic. This is like saying that since forest fires occurred long before humans appeared arson is then impossible. Clearly a moron argument. Simply because climate has changed in the past for other reasons does not mean humanity is not responsible now.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA selection of the emails here.
Blah: Regarding the nice flourish of "gills" and "swamped cities..." There may just be enough time for us to evolve gills by the time the water rises...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: And here Blah reveals himself to be ignorance of all biology. A whole new respiratory system in less than century. Got it./s Tell me Blah, what mammals have evolved gills? I am not aware of any cetacean that has but perhaps you could surprise me. Go ahead.
Blah Says: Regarding Mars... just trying to help you find a control for your thesis. Yes, I am keenly aware of the ability to measure solar output... I have used solar telescopes, I have worked at a planetarium, I build satellites for a living.
Trent Says: Well, Mr. self-promoted solar astronomer none of this answers the fact that the tsi has not increased in decades. Any more fake credential droppings?
Now I want everyone to notice how feels himself free from answering other peoples questions. He does not will not answer my questions about how models have predicted phenomena almost a century before they are observed. Some of those phenomena are also falsifications of the solar hypothesis. I am getting the feeling that Blah is another self-entitled prat who thinks answering others peoples questions is beneath him.
Wow... I believe that any reasonable person would conclude that my mention of gills was sarcastic and in response to your exaggerated first mention of gills and swamped cities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the IPCC AR4 the oceans are rising at 3.1mm/yr. Or in other words a 6ft (1829mm) human would have to begin treading water in ~590 years... (straight line) Or roughly his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild. Considering the change in scientific knowledge from 70 years prior to Columbus till now... We may have some ideas on how to manage a 6 foot increase in ocean rising.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have evaded my question twice. I will ask it in the most clear of terms I know how.
Prove that humans are causing warming outside the historical temperature fluctuation when humans weren't a factor.
I am fully aware that an effect may have multiple or different causes at different times. What I am asking is for you to show that fluctuation well withing historical fluctuation is caused by humans to a degree that warrants draconian regulation and over hyped disasters.
You say: "Simply because climate has changed in the past for other reasons does not mean humanity is not responsible now." Agreed, but Occam's Razor would suggest it has been doing this for millions of years at greater fluxuations. Why is this any different? Do you have anything to answer this but deflections?
~~~~~~~~~~~
No paradox. You can say that data may have issues but still use it as it is the best we have. It is called honesty.
http://berkeleyearth.org/ 's BEST study shows a flat decade. I'll revise my statement of cooling to flat over the last decade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trent Says: You are still weaving a fantasy here. The fact is that the 80's were warmer than the 70's, the 90's warmer than the 80's, and the 2000's were warmer than the 90's. That is a fact:
That may be true, but the rise is much lower than predicted by the Models. Specifically atmospheric temperatures as measured by satellites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And when you get around to it maybe you can address a few other questions
1. Do you believe that the temperature fluctuation of the last 200 years are withing historical fluctuation?
2. Do you believe that the consequence of these fluctuation warrant the over hyped rhetoric of "Swamped Cities" to scare the public into action?
~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, I appreciate your ad hominem laced comments, they make me smile.
Trent Says: Well, Mr. self-promoted solar astronomer none of this answers the fact that the tsi has not increased in decades. Any more fake credential droppings?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou asked the question if I was aware that we could measure the solar output. I was simply answering your question. You may take this as boasting and blow it out of proportion if you wish, no skin off my nose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlah Says: I believe that any reasonable person would conclude that my mention of gills was sarcastic and in response to your exaggerated first mention of gills and swamped cities.
Trent Says: Considering the ineptitude you have shown in relation to your command of facts and logic I think it is pretty reasonable to conclude you would be that dumb.
Blah Says:From the IPCC AR4 the oceans are rising at 3.1mm/yr.
Trent Says: And accelerating. Do not let those little details like facts slow you down.
Blah Says: Prove that humans are causing warming outside the historical temperature fluctuation when humans weren't a factor.
Trent Says: The term is evidence you do know how science works Mr. Astronomer? And you have been given that evidence.
Here it is again:
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
See those highlighted cites? Those go to the study themselves. Now your questions has been answered TWICE.
Blah Blah Says: Agreed, but Occam's Razor would suggest it has been doing this for millions of years at greater fluxuation.
Trent Says: You do not know how to wield Occam's Razor. Watch it you are going to cut yourself. Occam's Razor holds that all that if two hypotheses explain all the EVIDENCE being you chose the simpler one.
The problem here with that misappropriation of a logic tool is that alternative explanations do not explain ALL the evidence. Further saying that here have been greater temperatures in the past does not preclude human being responsible for the temperature rise now. Pointing out that temperature has risen in the past is not an explanation for the current rise.
Blah Blah Says: No paradox. You can say that data may have issues but still use it as it is the best we have. It is called honesty.
Trent Says: No it is not. If in one sentence you say the temperature record is UNRELIABLE then point to that same record and make judgments based upon that record you are being hypocritical and illogical. Just the opposite of honesty. If you do not trust the temperature record then you can say nothing more than that about it. Coherence: it is just not a word in the dictionary.
Blah Blah Says: That may be true, but the rise is much lower than predicted by the Models.
Trent Says: False. You have been give a link to the peer reviewed literature saying other wise. Why lie?
Blah Blah Says: Do you believe that the temperature fluctuation of the last 200 years are withing historical fluctuation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: What does that even mean? Can you define your terms. The instrument record stretches back to about 1850 to present for Had Cru. BEST has it pegged regionally to 1800 to present for the land record. NASA-GISS goes from 1880 to present. All of them show that the 2000's are the hottest on ALL of their records.
Here from BEST is all of the land records compared:
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
Blah Blah Says: You asked the question if I was aware that we could measure the solar output. I was simply answering your question. You may take this as boasting and blow it out of proportion if you wish, no skin off my nose.
Trent Says: So you admit that the TSI has not gone up and thus your idiot statement that "Mars is warming too"
was offered disingenuously. Got it.
Now when are you going to answer my questions about the models being so right?
So everything is black and white eh? You have no doubts? You are a true believer? No Hedges? IPCC is gospel truth? You are dyed in the wool, true blue, through and through?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it isn't as iron clad as you have communicated thus far, where are your biggest concerns?
Trent Says: What does that even mean? Can you define your terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, over the last 400k years. There is a general agreement via ice cores, tree rings, geological records of past temperature data.
Blah Blah Says: So everything is black and white, eh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: I am sorry I am having a hard time hearing you with all that straw you are throwing around.
Blah Says: You have no doubts?
Trent Says: Doubts about what?
Do I find reasonable doubt that CO2 captures and reradiates CO2? No.
Do I find reasonable doubt that humans have increased and are continuing to increase CO2 levels? No.
Do I find reasonable doubt that temperatures have increased since the Industrial Revolution? No.
Do I find reasonable doubt that the stratosphere has cooled whiled the troposphere is warmed and thus provide evidence for AGW? No.
Do I find reasonably doubt that the laws of thermodynamics have been suspended in the case of CO2 emissions? No.
Blah Blah Says: Yeah, over the last 400k years. There is a general agreement via ice cores, tree rings, geological records of past temperature data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Yes, and....?
Tell me. What do you make of the email scandal? What do you think about the false data re the glaciers? What do you think re humans causing tsunamis? Just so we can establish a baseline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle Says: Tell me. What do you make of the email scandal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: There was no scandal only a manufactured controversy that was all noise that signified nothing.
Now compare that to Pat Michaels altering graphs and the conclusions of scientific papers. The Hansen model lie is particularly ergregious since he testified in Congress under oath.
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1222
Now that is a scandal.
Carlyle Says: What do you think about the false data re the glaciers?
Trent Says: There was no false data simply a miscommunication on the final melting date for Himalaya Glace rs. A error that is only found in one subsection of a 3,0000 page work and does not appear in any of the summaries. By the way even if the melting of the Himalaya glacier is two centuries off that is still about 2 magnitudes faster than has ever been found in nature.
Here is where the real scandal lays. The fact that 89% of all monitored glaciers are in retreat. Compare that to the 66% rate that was in the 90's, and the 50% rate in the 80's.
World Glacier Monitoring Service.
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
Now contrast that to the claim that the glaciers are growing. That is a flat out lie. How can anyone ignore 89% of the data? Now that is a scandal.
Carlyle Says: What do you think re humans causing tsunamis?
Trent Says: Now you are being disingenuous. You know that old horse will not gallop no matter how much you beat it. I am sorry but a newspaper report without quotes is not evidence. What is most telling is that I think now a dozen different people have pointed out this idiocy and you persist in it.
So here is the challenge go find a video or publication by Pachuri's hand and show it. If he believes it then should be trivial to find him saying it. If you can't then that should let any audience know that you have the integrity of a psychopathic weasel.
So now we know. Except that most likely you & Sault are probably one & the same. Or at the least occupy the same intellect free zone. I see no point in further discussion with you. 911 was probably a George Bush conspiracy & Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent victim in your strange world. The denials of reality are the same. You need help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShorter Carlyle: I am not interested in providing concreted data for my flimsy assertions and you liked Lee Harvey Oswald.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see em!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo look at all the evidence gathered on this page:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/23/375268/the-real-climategate-scandals-are-piling-up/
See all those underlined strings of words? Those are LINKS and they take you to independent sources. So, even if you think I'm sending you to a dirty hippie site, you don't have to take their word for it! You can look for your own eyes at the debunking of "climategate" and come up with your own decisions. That's just the easiest page to find that has the best proof all in one place. I mean, it's not like I get PAID to post around here, so I'm not going to post EVERY SINGLE LINK on these boards (because SciAm dot com would think I'm a spambot!).
So please, just look at the links showing that "climategate" was overblown and tell me what you think. ALL those independent investigations clered climate scientists of ANY wrongdoing. Please, give it 10 minutes of your time and see if it changes your mind, just a little...
Sault,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you actually believe "these people" will attempt to educate themselves by reading what climatologists or any university or government body has to say? As you have probably heard them say, 'it was Penn State that investigated Jerry Sandusky.' They only believe Koch, Limbaugh, Beck, et al.
Or are you just trying to clean up the propaganda sewage?
Whatever the case, thanks for keeping up the fight.
Most people reading these boards never post, so I don't want them getting misled by things that are clearly false. When we eventually realize that climate change is the defining issue of the 21st Century, much like nuclear annihilation was the defining issue of the 20th, I can at least look back and find comfort in the fact that I tried to fight back against the misinformation as best I could.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRidiculous. If greater warmth (questionable) led to greater breeding success they would have been nesting farther south.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just want to take this opportunity to state once again that I support global warming because not getting below freezing in January sounds pretty good to me. I really don't care about possible causes, I just want it warm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this