"A new article out today claiming that Salamanders are shrinking in size due to climate change."
Salamanders: One of the best universal baits ever used virtually guaranteed to catch a fish on every cast. Of course they're a little tough to find. Hint: use the smaller one in the pic. (This thread is beginning to slide downhill from serious to ridiculous).
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.
A video of this press release follows. Here’s a screen cap from it. CLEMSON, S.C. — Wild salamanders living in some of North America’s best salamander habitat are getting smaller as their sur…
Here is their finding. "The changing body size of salamanders is one of the largest and fastest rates of change ever recorded in any animal and the data recorded in this study reveals that it is clearly correlated with climate change"
Here is how they did the study.
"To find out how climate change affected the animals, Sears used a computer program to create an artificial salamander, which allowed him to estimate a typical salamander’s daily activity and the number of calories it burned."
As was pointed out in the commentary a study done in 2005 showed exactly the opposite result.
Yes, I am serious. It is a simple graph that shows no global warming over the past 100 years, which is arguably a very short time in the history of the earth.
I do not know the creator of the post, so can't comment on the hack accusation.
I guess you are saying the graph is incorrect?
One of the effects of global warming is abnormally cold temperatures in certain regions. The graph actually makes the case for global warming.
If you're going to debunk something, it's a good idea to know what you're debunking.
DUUUH
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
The world is already spending 1 billion a day on reducing CO2. Is that not enough for you?
How many Billions a day would be too much if you were choking to death?
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
How many Billions a day would be too much if you were choking to death?
Or you can handle it the way China did. When smog enveloped certain cities from their 90% use of coal in electric generation they simply moved the plants to rural areas. Problem solved.
To answer your question I would wait to see IF there is a problem first. The IPCC gave a range of 1.5C to 4C in their estimate per doubling of CO2. Remember most experts say holding temperature levels below 2C is key.
The IPCC recently lowered the lower bound from 2C down to 1.5C so I'd say that based on the current pause that we might be able to go more slowly without disrupting world economies.
Or you can handle it the way China did. When smog enveloped certain cities from their 90% use of coal in electric generation they simply moved the plants to rural areas. Problem solved.
That's a funny one.
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)
Frankly if my real estate models were this poor I never would have made it to collect my big fat State Pension.
For this you want to spend 1 billion a day on something that might not even be a problem? AND the UN would like the world to increase that amount threefold or 1 trillion a year.
I highly respect your opinions regarding outdoor matters, and you make some of the best dehydrated food I have ever had.
However, I do not see how abnormally cold temperatures equate to the proof of global warming. It just does not make any sense.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
I remember reading up on this counter-intuitive observation.
It has something to do with the north pole being just as cold as it ever was in winter and the jet stream, which acts like a divider or barrier between the cold arctic air and the now warmer southern air. Because the temp differences across the barrier are now greater than before there is more energy in the system. This energy somehow gets translated into deeper North-South waves in the jet stream. As a result, cold arctic air gets drawn further south than previously resulting in unusual frosts in FLA. The flip side is unusually warmer weather in the north as southern air gets drawn to higher latitudes.
This is a quick and dirty explanation and it assumes you know about waves in the jet stream and cyclonic and anticyclonic rotation of air masses. I have no idea if it's true or if climatologists buy it but since I read it on the internet it probably is true.
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Or you can handle it the way China did. When smog enveloped certain cities from their 90% use of coal in electric generation they simply moved the plants to rural areas. Problem solved.
To answer your question I would wait to see IF there is a problem first. The IPCC gave a range of 1.5C to 4C in their estimate per doubling of CO2. Remember most experts say holding temperature levels below 2C is key.
The IPCC recently lowered the lower bound from 2C down to 1.5C so I'd say that based on the current pause that we might be able to go more slowly without disrupting world economies.
Kind of like the United States putting their nuclear waste dumps on Indian reservations?
Wait to see "if there is a problem"? Take your head out of the sand and look around. Forget what anyone says. Just look at the state of the environment and the changes that have occurred in your lifetime. I've been on this earth for 72+ years. I have been all over the world and have covered most of the US, especially the remote areas. I have been full cycle,returning in the last few years to many of the places that I backpacked in as a child and a young man. I don't need a scientist to tell me there is a problem. I can see, touch and smell it for myself. And it's gotten worse in the last 10 years then it did in the first 60 of my existence.
When push come to shove, I'll trust my senses and my experiences over those of any scientist, or anyone else for that matter.
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
Heat content is the amount of thermal energy in an object. It takes the mass of the object, and its specific heat (a property of the material it's made of). It's a very precise calculation, based on very precise measurements. So if a body of water (or any other object) gets a certain amount warmer, you can calculate the amount of energy the water absorbed. But if you're implying that a measurement is somehow more reliable than a calculation, then I guess you must not believe in math.
The data I cited isn't model data, it's from actual ocean temperature measurements at various depths (not just the surface). The article you cited is critiquing models of only surface temps, while ignoring the complete set of data, which clearly shows warming. It's like calculating the temperature of a house based on a thermometer in the refrigerator.
If you look at the whole ocean, at all depths, not just the very surface (because obviously most of the water in the ocean isn't right at the surface) The data clearly shows that the ocean is getting warmer, and it's absorbing an enormous amount of thermal energy. Much more than the atmosphere.
It's another cherry picked data set being taken out of context. That's his (Anthony Watts) specialty. Sifting through mountains of data that show clear evidence of warming, and finding the one tiny fragment that supports his argument if you misinterpret it. Or just as often he ignores actual data altogether, and finds errors in models.
He also talks a lot about ocean temperature oscillations, which is a bit like saying that because the water in a bucket is sloshing around, the amount of water in the bucket must be changing. oscilations move heat around, but they don't change the total heat content, unless you only look at the surface.
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Heat content is the amount of thermal energy in an object. But if you're implying that a measurement is somehow more reliable than a calculation, then I guess you must not believe in math.
If you look at the whole ocean, at all depths, not just the very surface (because obviously most of the water in the ocean isn't right at the surface) The data clearly shows that the ocean is getting warmer, and it's absorbing an enormous amount of thermal energy. Much more than the atmosphere.
First off, the chart compares model estimates for ocean surface versus actual Ocean temperature for the ocean surface. I understand that you are saying that estimate is not wrong because the additional heat is absorbed at lower depths.
But here is my question. If modelers knew that the lower depths would absorb the heat why was it not accounted for in the model predicting ocean surface temperatures? If it were, wouldn't the model prediction be more accurate?
I see it as I would any other model. Prediction versus actual. That's called model validation.
My other question is, other than another scientist plugging in the same precise calculation for heat content that you used, what actual measures are available to validate it? If you have a source of ocean temperatures for all oceans at all depths please provide it. I've only found graphs for ocean temperature depth down to 100m and one down to 700m. Are there any lower? If there aren't than its not cherry picking when you use what is actually measured.
Again, I understand what you are saying. Its a precise calculation (heat content) and its not wrong just wait and time will prove it correct by rising ocean surface temperatures at some point in the future.
That's my point. When in the future? Most of the Climate Alarmism is citing what may happen to the environment in the year 2100. From my point of view if the current model predictions are slow to come to pass wouldn't that imply that either the lower range of 1.5c is more likely than the 4c upper end OR that the 2100 might be too early and maybe 2200 or 2400 might be the actual date when predicted temperatures and their consequences come true.
By then mankind might not even be around and the world will be only inhabited by polar bears, penguins and salamanders (the real ones not the artificially modeled ones).
By the way Watts did not write the model critique and Watts is not a physicist but a meteorologist. He simply posts certain articles that are informative.
If you want an opinion by an actual physicist here is what Freeman Dyson says.
Freeman Dyson may be the most accomplished physicist not just in New Jersey but on the planet - too smart to accept simplistic explanations of climate change
Last edited by cityboy; 03-28-2014, 04:47 AM.
Reason: Added Freeman Dyson Comment
Kind of like the United States putting their nuclear waste dumps on Indian reservations?
Wait to see "if there is a problem"? Take your head out of the sand and look around. Forget what anyone says. Just look at the state of the environment and the changes that have occurred in your lifetime. I've been on this earth for 72+ years. I have been all over the world and have covered most of the US, especially the remote areas. I have been full cycle,returning in the last few years to many of the places that I backpacked in as a child and a young man. I don't need a scientist to tell me there is a problem. I can see, touch and smell it for myself. And it's gotten worse in the last 10 years then it did in the first 60 of my existence.
When push come to shove, I'll trust my senses and my experiences over those of any scientist, or anyone else for that matter.
Hawk, I can agree generally to your assessment but feel a need to add some optimism. Some places (certain streams in particular) are cleaner now than when I was young and more places are being reclaimed nicely every year. I know that gross degradation is pretty much inevitable but methinks that there is a greater number of conservation conscious youth than in yesteryear. What do you think?
"A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden
Comment