http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35650398/ns/technology_and_science-science/from/ET
We would like to thank our students and former students for their continuing interest in what we post. Today's thought is based on an article forwarded to us from a reader.
Scientists have concluded that the polar bear evolved roughly 150,000 years ago based on new DNA studies. These studies appear to corroborate prior research.
Given this, there appears also to be a consensus amongst those same scientists that, at least once, 44,000 years ago, polar bears had to "adapt" to a global warming period. This involved herding to those places that continued to provide the environment they were used to. Some say that may be going on today - we are empathetic to those who try to "count" polar bears in order to see "where" they are and "how many" there are.
But, unless we are mistaken, there were no SUVs on the planet 44,000 years ago so we see an argument here for cyclical periods in the Earth's history where we had "cooling" and "warming" which were, in some cases, more severe than many doomsayers predict for now or the near future (this would be the same thought as was expressed quite eloquently by an MIT climatologist we quoted in our year end 2009 post).
We were pleased to see that Al Gore did chime in over the weekend about the heavy snows in D.C., Dallas and elsewhere and we plan on responding.
For now, we remain in the camp of people like George Will who have problems with the "global warmists" who claim that "anything" (like heavy snows) is a sign of global warming. As Will has said many times, we are in a 10 year period (or, is it 15?) where world temperatures haven't gotten any warmer. Would this too be a sign of global warming?
Meanwhile, our best to the polar bears who appear to be surviving modern life and are being carefully watched.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://www.theolympian.com/2010/03/01/1156344/noaa-january-was-4th-warmest-on.html
ReplyDeleteThe last 30+ Januaries have been warmer than the 20th century average. Last month was the 4th hottest January on record.
The 2000s were the warmest decade on record, and before that, it was the 1990s.
George Will is wrong, Professor Hazzard. His statistics are conveniently skewed to ignore data that doesn't fit his paradigm.
I have no doubt that our planet goes through cycles of cooling and warming. I also know the same people who said there was no cooling or warming have now retreated to that position because it looks increasingly ignorant to say that no warming is occurring.
To quote another source:
Q. What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?
A. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.
In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
That's from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html. Global levels of CO2 are rising now when they weren't before. An interesting phenomenon, wouldn't you agree?
Is this also a natural cycle? Maybe. If it is, it's a very, very long one. Deforestation and burning billions of cubic tons of coal per year couldn't POSSIBLY have ANYTHING to do with that, could it?
I really am astonished at the logical leaps people are willing to make to ignore the obvious truth.
Great post Craig! We don't get enough "commentary" from you! How could I disagree with your facts? It's hard for an old man to keep up with you PhD types!
ReplyDeleteCharlie,
ReplyDeleteThe real question is not so much that the climate is changing; it is. And it is also not that man is causing it; we are. The real questions are: 1) the effects on civilization and advancement of human kind, 2) can we do something about it.
1) The effects, although mild at the moment can be severe. The possibility of creating tundra or desert over the majority of the plant is real. We can discuss that offline if you like.
2) Given that the hole in the ozone layer has healed, I'd say that we can affect global climate. Ironically, this has increased global warming. It's the equivalent of putting on a hat. However, it was a wise long term decision that benefits the planet.
Great comments again! Odaselementales: let's talk off line whenever you'd like. It would help your understanding of my position if you read my final 2009 post.
ReplyDeleteWhat did those poor polar bears ever do to you Charlie?? :)
ReplyDeleteI don't really know about the polar bear, but I do know that we are having some effect on the environment and at this point it is a negative one. As I stated a few weeks ago, I fear that we get distracted by the larger issue of "global warming" and miss the point that we have impacted the environment, locally if not globally. One thing that really concerns me is that that the individuals and organizations that stand to gain the most (sorry, Charlie, this is big oil) are using the same tactics that big tobacco did. Deny. Confuse. Get a few experts to give stats that disprove. etc. etc. And we all know what they say about statics right? So, in order for the average citizen to understand the problem, we have to take it down to the local (observable) level to get change.
Dr. TR: Great comments, as always! Now that I am tarred with the "big oil" label, I'll have to try to work my way out from under it! It's probably true that I don't spend enough time on what I'm "for": natural gas which burns cleaner (and has supplied a 20% PER YEAR INCREASE IN "JOBS" SINCE 2006), nuclear (where I wish we were where France is for their electric power - is it over 70% now?), and wind (where we could be doing more but we're all wrapped up in the "politics" of it: in Texas, the company that was approved to create the wind energy supply line from West Texas to DFW is Chinese, so there have been issues about U.S. government subsidies and where the ultimate profits go.). As to oil itself, we now have an environmentally friendly way to "recover" over 800 billion barrels of oil from shale formations in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah (Canada is the number one supplier to the U.S. where that tar sand formation is about 175 billion barrels - and not environmentally friendly; Saudia Arabia alone is about 250 billion barrels - and is OPEC friendly). Unfortunately, Congress has not approved the approach even though third parties have deemed it "environmentally sound".
ReplyDelete