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.
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.