Slashdot Mirror
Analyzing Climate Change On Carbon Rich Peat Bogs
eldavojohn writes "A new report (PDF) from Climate Central shows that climate change has been affecting some states more than others for the past 100 years. As you can see from a video released by NASA, things have become most problematic since the 70s. Among the states most affected is Minnesota, where moose populations are estimated to have dropped 50% in the past six years. Now the U.S. Department of Energy is spending $50 million on a massive project at the Marcell Experimental Forest to build controlled sections of 36 feet wide and 32 feet tall transparent chambers over peatland ecosystems. Although peat bogs only account for 3% of Earth's surface, they contain over 30% of carbon stored in soil. They aim to manipulate these enclosures to see the effects of warming up to 15 degrees, searching for a tipping point and also observing what new ecosystems might arise. The project hopes to draw attention and analysis from hundreds of scientists and researchers around the globe."
So in a sense the fact that scientists in the U.S are still able to openly conduct this sort of research is good news, even if the discoveries they make are bad.
I seriously hope people reduce pollution for the sake of reducing pollution, regardless of whether it helps fight "climate change", "global warming", "intergalactic global warming", or whatever you want to call it. Regardless of the cause, cut pollution for the sake of cutting pollution.
I hope people take these studies with a grain of salt. There seems to be so much conflicting information out there as to what the cause is or how to reduce it, it seems hopeless. So I'll say this again. Cut pollution for the sake of cutting pollution.
Or those prone to go childish on this topic.
My irony meter just exploded.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The link you provided only lists temperature by month, which are you referring to? Isn't this the very definition of cherry picking data to prove your point? Why look at only an 8yr period when there is data going back to 1895?
If we can pick our point first and then choose the data, look at this study which says MN has experienced the highest temperature increase over the last 40 years. http://www.startribune.com/local/158771045.html
Nobody said the temperature has increased 15C, the article only says that is what the experiment is testing up to (actually it doesn't say 15C or 15F). This is standard engineering practice to stress test a system beyond the "norms" to simulate longer periods of time than is reasonable to test.
I wonder if the decline is real, or if it's a sampling error. From the paper:
We estimated moose numbers and age/sex ratios by flying transects within a stratified random sample of survey plots (Figure 1). Survey plots were last stratified in 2009.
Could the stratification of plots be a source of error? I am not sure. They did account for viability bias:
We accounted for visibility bias by using a sightability model (Giudice et al. 2012).
But, did they properly account for a number of other sources of error (e.g. migration; herd location; etc)? I'm not saying their method is flawed, just that I cannot tell from the paper whether or not other reasons for the change in data.
This experiment seems to require them to measure what is in the biodome's atmosphere so I am assuming they are sealed off from the outside atmosphere. Thing is, nobody has ever managed to get a large sealed biodome to stay stable for more than about a year, without fresh air they turn into giant glasshouses full of rotting organic material. Perhaps this one will be different since there are no humans living in it but my prediction is it will rapidly collapse into a rather smelly single celled ecosystem. If OTOH it does work, it may turn out to be very useful for space exploration.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Atmospheric CO2 partial pressure is at an all time high (post industrial revolution) for as far back as we can measure.
You contradict yourself - first you say that deep ice core data shows that temperature rises and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are linked, then you claim that "no one has proven ... if they just happen to appear together". I'll save you the trouble - the former is the accurate statement, although it's not exclusive to CO2; any molecule that absorbs IR in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, which makes the biggest culprits CO2 and water vapour. There are many others that are considerably worse than CO2 (hundreds, sometimes thousands of times more potent as IR absorbers) that are mitigated by low concentrations.
It's very easy to demonstrate with a simple science experiment that you can do yourself at home with a plastic bottle, a thermometer, a stopwatch and a lamp. Seal the bottle then point the lamp at it and leave it for 10 minutes. Measure the temperature inside after this time has elapsed. Now open the bottle and breathe in and out, sealing your mouth around the neck for as long as you can manage it (until all the oxygen is gone) - ie, vastly increase the concentration of CO2 and water vapour inside the bottle. Seal it up and then wait for the temperature inside to fall to the same level as the air was in the first experiment (your breath will obviously be warm, so you want to start from the same air temperature). When it's back to the same level turn the lamp on and wait another 10 minutes and record the temperature. Record your results.
The chemistry of IR absorbing gasses is not controversial. It only seems to be when it's politically inconvenient. Suddenly the idea that CO2 absorbs IR radiation just because it's in the earth's atmosphere rather than in a lab setting is "merely anecdotal".
Most radiation that falls on the earth *is* reflected (our albedo is quite high), and even then, much of the re-radiated IR from the earth's surface is also lost to space - this is not new or controversial information.
"We need to understand climates change and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it" is probably the most hilariously inaccurate and naive statement I think I've ever read on slashdot. Not only is it one of the most ridiculous "head in the sand" conclusions drawn from a fundamental misunderstanding of basic science (if the first part of the comment is anything to go by), but it's contradicted by extensive evidence to the contrary by a number of widely famous examples. The most obvious of these would be the depletion (and subsequent re-establishment) of the ozone layer and the corresponding changes to the climate that were observed and reversed in response to human actions.
If all the people on earth disappeared the climate would indeed continue to change in response to events that occur - the only difference is that there would be no further changes from anthropogenic factors. The fact that it responds to natural changes does not mean that humans have no effect on it. Again, you seem to misunderstand the way that the climate works.
Ok,. climate changes. Within ten thousands of years. Climate change within 100 years didn't happen before except after catastrophical events like continent wide volcanism or a large meteorite impact. And you know what? After such events, regularly 50 percent or more of all higher lifeforms vanished. Those events occur about every 100 million years and are called major extinction events.
In textbooks from the 1960ies, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was given at 280 ppm. When I was in school, we learned that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is 330 ppm. Today we are at 400 ppm. So we managed to increase the CO2-level for 40 percent within 50 years. And today we have the highest amount of coal, gas and oil usage in history, far higher than in the 1960ies, pointing to an even higher increase in CO2 emittance than ever. If you still believe, we can't change the world wide climate, you have to have very strong arguments for the contrary. Just some handweaving "It won't be that bad as predicted" won't suffice.
I live in the Alps. We have the lowest glacier coverage here since recorded history (which partly goes back to the Roman Empire). Ötzi the Ice Man came uncovered after 5300 years in the ice of the glacier, because the glacier was at an all time low at that time -- obviously at least the lowest level since 5300 years. Don't give me anything of "anecdotical evidence", when we can measure the change.
I demand News for Nerds !! What nerd cares of peat and bogs ?? No nerd !! Only a hippie cares of peat and bogs !!
OK, here you go:
“Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest castle in these islands.”
Happy now?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Moose populations are probably a poor indicator, especially in areas near the edges of their normal habitat. These are affected by deforestation, marsh draining, and more importantly, do not mix well in areas that also have deer (or so I'm led to believe) due to a disease frequently found in deer feces.
Cut pollution for the sake of cutting pollution.
Problem is, a large number of people don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant.
There seems to be so much conflicting information out there as to what the cause is or how to reduce it, it seems hopeless
Yep, life is messy and it's often hard to find a candle in the dark, it's full of blatant self serving liars such as the one in the linked video who on the surface appear to be reasonable common sense folk, to deal with with this avalanche of intellectual dishonesty from proffesional propogandists, and avoid being drafted into their particular army of useful idiots, you can either...
1. Pick the side that best matches your politics/religion/fetish/wallet/eye-shadow/whatever and then firmly plant your fingers in your ears and start humming loudly.
2. Try to appease both sides from a seat on the fence. That's just the starting position, until you get past it, it's the equvalent of "who cares, lets just all be friends". If you actually care about the issue go back and re-choose from option 1 or 3 only.
3. Attempt to understand the issue to the point where you can routinely spot bullshit from both sides of the emotional divide, then draw your own conclusions. (see sig for further details).
If you picked option 1, you can stop reading now and use a dart board to negate your (valid) concerns. The third option is a bitch. The modern world is extrodinary evidence that it gives the best answers but stubornly refuses to deliver absolute certainty about anything. It also requires humility, time, work and critical thinking so from a practical stand point every one of us goes for option 2 in the majority of cases. (if you were redirected here from option 2 the only way out of an infinite loop is to admit you don't care enough to throw a dart)
As always if you don't understand a subject the best place to start looking is here. For a more nuanced understanding you need to look at what the scientific community are talking about. As a young man and HS drop out this is where I went wrong, I was interested in science and since the internet had not been invented, my next best option was the public library or the news stand.
All three sources of information on science conflate science with scams, speculation, and metaphysics. Even if you could somehow magically remove all the propoganda from amoral FUD factories trying to win hearts by confusing minds there is no way for an inexperienced amature-researcher to tell the difference between (say) Nature magazine and UFO monthly. So here is some advise from someone who desrted Uri Geller's army of useful idiots 32 years ago, and please feel free to use that grain of salt on it....
1. Find the primary source, if you can't, tag article as bullshit.
2. Compare the primary source to the article that lead you there, if they conflict, tag article as bullshit.
3. What is the track record of the primary source and is it peer-reviewed, ie: does it come from Nasa, the phycic hotline, or a random slashdot post such as this one?
4. Does other scientific literature from different primary sources confirm or debunk the claims?
5. Having done the above work in 1-4 you're now in a position where you actually have a reasonable understanding of the issue and you can pretty much ignore every thing other people say and make up your own mind confident in the knowledge you arrived at your position via reason.
6. Using the decision from 5 you can now apply it to any article discussing that particular 'talking point' and pretty much ignore them other than keeping an eye out for fundemental points you hadn't thought of (if that happens
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
No way they allow that experiment to yield dangerous results. The House will zero out that budget.
Also, xkcd has covered it pretty succinctly.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
yeah, people may be trampled while trying to get off the planet
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
So if it's true of Minnesota it must be true of every square inch of the planet. Your playing the blind men and the elephant game. You might as well stick your head out the door and if it isn't raining declare there's a drought. It's called cherry picking data, the very thing the right always accuses climate scientists of doing. Worldwide averages are what count. If instead of Minnesota you picked Alaska and based the percentage of increase for the rest of the country based on those observations the southern half of the country would be like the Equator. The climate is far too complicated to base any conclusions on a single area's temperature.
Your snide comments ignore the fact you cannot provide a link to any truly peer reviewed paper proving the modern disasters predicted ahead - all of them used data that was not generally published.
I take it from this radical change in rhetoric that in fact, there is NO models that make the predictions specified by the GP: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2917007&cid=40333763 - specifically:
There is no model form the 1980s that predicted that by now, at 56 degrees latitude north landmasses will be buried under a mile of ice, and that equatorial Africa would have a climate similar to Central Europe.
There is no model from the 1990s that the Earth would be fried by intense UV because of the complete unstoppable destruction of the ozone layer, with arid deserts reaching from the Sahara to as far north as Denmark - where it wasn't all submerged under water from the melting icecaps.
There is no climate model from ten years ago (2002) that told us that by now, we'd be experiencing unprecedented storms, hurricane-force winds all year round, and bitterly cold winters and blistering hot summers that kill off all the arable crops.
What is interesting is the level of specificity used in this fraud - attempting to add plausibility by making reference to personal expertise and experience. In fact it is my suspicion that the poster of these remarks already knew that those assertion were not accurate - he/she was lying.
No model published has been able to predict anything about what the climate is doing, what sea levels are doing, etc. etc. - yet they are not afraid to make the most dire of forecasts, like four feet of sea level rise.
On the contrary, climate models have been alarmingly accurate, especially since the development of AOGCMs. It's certainly true that they are simulations, and climatologists have been quite open about their shortcomings.Newer, less parameterised models are more accurate than those used even in the 1980s
The alternative, of course, is to accept the kind of blind guesswork prevalent in the chicken coop of climate denialism - the above demonstrates just how far off base those chicken heads are, even to the extent of openly lying about the past. You'll have to forgive us if in future we are sceptical about pronouncements coming from this source.