tantalus

You'll need to be more specific. Also please don't make assumptions about my education and use argument from authority.

Not an easy thing to cite. Not really sure that there is any consensus building centre you can go to for evolutionary biology, after all, your looking for an academic pulse. There is definitely still plenty of disagreement. However, I would definitely agree with MEC1960 that the gene centred view dominates the academic field and is the most influential, but to get a feel for it I think you just have to read widely. The thing is the distinction is not strictly important in many instances when discussing adaptations or explaining evolutionary causes of most biological phenomena, so that it can allow the debate to simmer or be left untouched in much evolutionary work.

The evidence I posted up contradicts you, with the exception that the term "much smaller" allows for a wide interpretation. The younder dryas was a period of climate change far more significant that climate change of the 20th century. I won't discuss it terms of potential future change as it's a comparison to 20th century and extinction rates that is relevant to the original point of contention.

Your being selective. The ice cores are in greenland, so the best data will be there, while the greatest changes were there doesnt mean in wasnt very large elsewhere. edit. You will always get dramatic regional differences with climate change, if the IPCC more severe predictions are correct, we should expect more dramatic shift in certain regions over others. https://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm Same article. This the the main report you'll fing on abrupt climate change with a case study on the younger dryas http://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/4#27 See link for northern hemisphere pollen evidence of change in ecosystems and species shifts. Also see link for far greater coverage of proxy evidence of the younger dryas event than I present. I agree with this in principle [mp][/mp] Hopefully now I have illustrated it was much more than that. You will find a lot discussion that younger dryas was linked to megafaunal extinction especially in north america, I don't find this overly compelling( as a key driver) for a variety of reasons that I rather not get into at length, but suffice to say it it has its advocates in the literature and it has to be given serious consideration. Either way, there is no comparison with current extinction rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas With such dramatic changes in northern latitudes we can expect global effects. Cooler, warmer, wetter, drier, it all has effects on species locally adapted to past conditions. Furthermore at a local and regional level a species can't make a distinction. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp?MR=1 These climate events have not been able to match mankind in the 20th century for causing extinction despite their scale and rapid onset. [mp][/mp] In fact, some argue that there havnt been extinction rates witnessed on earth since the cretaceous extinction event. Also to add to my previous post, we should expect a bias to reported effects to major climate events to regions that have ice cores as they make such a good proxy for recording shifts in climate.

Agreed, care is needed. Fitness was a term developed in the academic period that championed the individual as the unit of selection. The gene centric view doesn't dismiss the individual but co-opted it, and with the concept of the gene as a unit for selection was able to provide an even better explanation for many difficult evolutionary conundrums. Yet genes still come together to build bodies, and largely they succeed or fail together (allowing us to get away with not making your distinction), so evolutionary fitness of that collective of genes is still a relevant concept. Even if it useful to think in terms of success/fitness for the genes that code for risky behaviours.

No i doubt it. But basically what I am saying is climate change is linked to only a handful of extinctions in the last 100 years, extraordinary high extinctions rates have been driven by other players and we are likely to see the continuation of that pattern. Abrupt is a relative term. Regionally you can look at the medieval optimuum 950-1100 and the little ice age, cool periods in the 1600, 1700 and 1800s punctuated by warming periods. Dramatic abrupt changes have occured regularly (over 20) over the last 100,000 years with events where proxy records indicate 5, 10 degree jumps in years and decade time periods. One example is the youner dryas, a 2-6 degree celsius drop in northern latitudes in decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas These events are not punctuated by rates of extinction that we are currently witnessing. No, was pointing out that climate change is likely to be more important that in the past because species are so vulnerable. It's more than political will, there is a fundamental problem with increasing world population and seeking to raise living standards for everyone and still wanting to preserve the habitat, but I take your point.

For sure, but big picture, not relevant to most species on the planet [mp][/mp] Here's the thing about species extinction, there are usually multiple drivers. So when a species goes extinct, do we blame climate, habitat loss, pollution, alien competitor out competes native etc. There is very little evidence for extinctions linked to climate change being key so far, a handful, but not many. That said, they are going to be difficult to prove neatly when they do happen moving forward. In the past, even with abrupt climate change, many species could change their ranges quickly and survive, these days many of those species will try to move to find their new suitable real estate climatically is cereal farmland or suburbia. Screwed. Incidentally, this is one of the greatest challenges to the currently popular idea of ring-fencing large areas of land to preserve species. Inevitably the climate will change and when they can't move... Furthermore many of those species may be vulnerable and endangered already requiring only a small shock to tip them over. And this surely is the reality. It's surely the case that many species are really heading for extinction already, due to loss of genetic pool, but they havent gotten over the line yet. Another thing is that measuring the problem by species number has fundamental limitations., you could prevent a species extinction but another species or element of their environment goes and it can set off a cascade that leads to ecosystem collapse. Also, important to thing in terms of genetic loss, not just because you need a healthy gene pool to ensure long term survival of a species for breeding, but also in terms of adaptability to environmental changes. Furthermore, a value of a species is often thought in terms of the potential compounds that can be developed from it for producing new medical treatments and drugs, a species is lost, and the cure to cancer could go with it etc, well not just a species, a particular population, genetically unique, of that species could go silently extinct, and of course its a far more common phenomena than species extinction. All that said, the key problem is habitat loss, if we are serious about preventing extinction , that's were we will start, climate change will interact with that main driver to finish many species off, but if we don't tackle habitat loss we should expect the current dramatic extinction rate to continue. In terms of adapting to the loss, in part you can't know what you never had, I think we will continue on being largely ignorant of it, as we have been doing for a long time, and reaping the benefits of new technology and improving living standards, even though we could have done far better. Eventually with peak population, and new technology, we should be able to turn the tide, but I feel the species of the world will feel the problem far more than human society.

Depends on your value system, the intrinsic value of non-sentient life is a tough sell to many. Species and ecosystems have monetary values that are dramatically underestimated by the free market, an economic and functional based argument is a more productive avenue imo.

No, climate modelling is a valid scientific method. The way the IPCC portray that body of work and the state of that science in their summaries is when much of the problem emerges. First, it's a logically sound principle to take preemptive action without certainty. Assessing action is very complicated and requires the input of scientists, economists, politicians from a wide range of fields, and their findings will vary locally and regionally. We should assume that the specific outcomes of their work are significantly effected depending on the amount of warming that occurs or our assessment of such certainty, and or the perception that takes hold from the IPCC reports. In light of such a complex process, I will give you a tepid response and it should be judged as such, not in absolutes. It's also worth noting that certain measures have other reasons to be undertaken anyway, consider the problems the Chinese face with air pollution relating to coal, even without factoring in their carbon emissions. I think we should focus on carbon-emission efficient technologies, climate adaption, especially in poorer countries, correct a mistake I think we made decades ago, and refocus on nuclear (especially over coal), while resisting calls for rapid reductions in carbon emissions that would damage growth, or the employment of expensive carbon sequestration proposals. Climate adaption is the key and a sound investment, needs to be applied at a local and regional level and possess many benefits other than to counter man made climate change effects. In fact, they would also protect against natural climate change, decadal variability, extreme weather events. And align with many other solutions to other environmental problems such as flood plain management, habitat loss, soil erosion etc A particular focus will be needed on global food security and preventing fluctuations in key commodities prices. The free-market is very sensitive and there is potential of quickly seeing millions being unable to afford food, and many rapidly sliding back into poverty. I find the second last question is oddly framed, nobody should be including someone like me in a framework for policy formation, but that's not to say my opinions shouldn't be included. On your last question, naturally I feel my opinions have a sound basis and should be included in political opposition as necessary. There is something worth mentioning not related to policy, the conduct of science. I feel that the scientific process is being damaged. Since advocating policy is needed in some form, and funding is required, there is an unavoidable link between politics and science. However the language of politics has rapidly crossed back into the field of science, any debate of IPCC work now is often being shot down with political language, and this is not in the spirit of the scientific process.

I misused the Brown paper, so it has little impact on a consensus on warming from what I think you mean by that. Please note that its not a consensus on warming that is in question, well I suppose for the last 15 years there clearly is debate as underestimated volcanic aerosols or natural variability linked to long term climate cycles not included in models, or heat storage, or problems with model sensitivity et al. may be offsetting co2 increases, but long term we should absolutely see warming, the question is how much. And if the IPCC conveys the state of the science and certainty when they represent the modelling results they collate, actually more that do they convey the state of their own collected science in their summaries. This is achieved in part by reasoning the evidence, for example expert judgement of the uncertainties in modelling results, not just looking at the graphs of actual models and their error bars. Those kinds of uncertainties in the models are absurdly complicated to a layperson, you can only yield to expert opinion. I don't think IPCC summaries are an accurate reflection based on the views of others. I have tried to present on the this idea of an extension of the consensus that extends through to confidence in the IPCC models as reflected in their summary.

Ya I miss understood that. Thanks

Yes, I would agree on that's what he is saying.

Its long been known that the Sahara was a green temperate grassland until 5 to 6 thousand years go. More recent evidence indicates that it abruptly changed to desert in 1 to 2 centuries. The cause of the wet, green sahara was linked to changes in earth's tilt and rotation that affected the sun's radiation in the region, triggering monsoon rains that swept onto the continent. The fact that the change from desert to grassland occurred so quickly indicated additional feedbacks, because the change with the sun couldnt cause it so quickly (apparently), the below paper speculated on an a further feedback by the growth of vegetation in the formerly desert region that sped up the process and they modelled it. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/280/5371/1916.full so it discusses your albedo effect. I guess this indicates on a large enough scale the importance of vegetation under this alternative climate scenario, but note the change in rainfall patterns came first. I cant see how you could plant trees in a desert like the Sahara currently on a large scale that could have any significant impact without a change in rainfall patterns that would keep them alive. Anyway, it is possibly rainfall that constrains tree growth in the sahel, and even in the savanna further south in favour of grasses that can outcompete tree seedlings in lower rainfall ecosystems, so you would have a better chance with grasses initially, although now I am just becoming a little speculative to say the least.

I have heard of design projects in Africa which seek to prevent water escaping greenhouses and trapping and reusing it. Not sure what there energy efficiency would be like, and I can't find reference to them online. Did come across this simple design in Ethiophia http://www.roots-up.org/#!Design-of-a-Dew-collector-Greenhouse/c1j2v/55082c6a0cf2031a76490f16 By raising the temperature in the day (I assume the plants they grow must have very high tolerance to high temperatures) they increase evaporation, which increases humidity, as hot air holds more water, the increasing humidity means even more water vapour is present than at lower temperatures, they then lower the temperature at night by removing the roof, the quick drop in temperature leads to condensation on the film (cool air cant hold all that water vapour so it condenses), and into a water container. Clean, usable for drinking or irrigation. It is not clear to me how much of that collected water came from plant transpiration versus evaporation, and would obviously depend on the amount of plant matter, species etc. Another project using a dessicant in the UAE. Although I have to say I don't understand the process as described in the article http://www.thenational.ae/uae/environment/20150914/greenhouse-that-could-save-uae-farmers-90-per-cent-on-water-unveiled

No body expects them to be 100% accurate. I don't have the expertise to give you numbers, I would be wasting your time. From Page 211 of the transcript, Santers presentation. Now while he is acknowledging the models difficulty, he goes on to propose a series of potential explanations for the stasis and models difficulty, and he doesnt feel they threaten the over all picture, so you can read those in the few pages that follow 211. Curry states that in regard to the hiatus that http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/04/causes-and-implications-of-the-pause/ I don't understand your position, even IPCC scientists like Collins and Santer acknowledge model failures over the last 15 years in regard to the hiatus. The real issue is the significance, if any, of such problems. In addition, since only time can confirm the merits of current modelling, discussions must be had not just in relation to the hiatus, which may not be very significant, but on the theoretical element of the models, and the level of uncertainty within them. The transcripts convey this debate well, although I havent read all of it yet (still need to read Isaac Held and concluding questions/discussion sections). No, I am even more confused None of the recent IPCC models deviate in co2 emissions until later into the century, therefore they can't effect the initial point of discussion, the recent hiatus. [mp][/mp] Ok I think I get one of your points now (I was slow on the uptake), Its actually unclear if Brown discusses solely A and B scenarios, or more at length about IPCC models, I think he is discussing both, although separately. You certainly can't discuss the recent hiatus in terms of scenarios, but actual models, but I think I see your actual point about what Brown is saying in regard to (only specifically in regard to) his "middle of the road" comment and the A, B scenarios.

I am definitely confused by your post. Also, I am not sure what page 265 refers to (the transcript?) When I discuss scenarios, I'm really refering to how models handle sensitivity, and how that affects their predictions of future temperature rises, perhaps that is confusing others when they read my posts. To quote your original post My point is that the IPCC latest modelling efforts don't deviate until 2040 with different co2 emission scenarios. Current difficulties in matching recent surface temperatures are not linked to co2 emission scenarios. Obviously nobody will be stating models are wrong 80 years from now if the model in question ran a different co2 emission scenario than actually occurred. Dont really no. IPCC have different modelled scenarios in regard to climate sensitivity, so which ones best fit real data as it comes in? And the state of expert opinion in regard to modelling failures to match real observations, and what, if anything, we can take from that over the short time periods in question. Since we don't know what the temperatures are going to be, the discussion on uncertainties and limitations in the models to account for variables that affect climate sensitivity are very important. The question is there a consensus among experts and what broadly are they disagreeing about and does this have implications in regard to certainty about different projections of climate sensitivity...

Swansont, To further clarify Its not just some models and It does miss that point, because I was trying to address your original point in that specific instance, not the models in general. It does clarify your original post on narrow grounds, without extending the clarification to any impact on the merits of the models. Your original post suggesting changing emission scenarios in reality not matching modelled scenarios asa possible explanation for any divergence in recent years between modelled scenarios and surface temperature data. To elaborate The graph relates to the 45 modelled scenarios the IPCC used in its latest report. Page 31. Quote from Dr.Collins, lead author of latest IPCC report on model evaluation. From page 37 http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf To clarify, this specific point is only addressing your original post, not the merit of IPCC modelling in general (or ore correctly, their summaries).

Cool. Merged post follows: ThanksThanks

Here's the thing guys, the watt link is a report of a workshop by the American Physical society from 2014, the largest society of physicists and one that has an official statement from 2007 in line with the IPCC. Although they made some adjustments to that report. That workshop was a discussion on climate modelling among others involving these 6 climate scientists. http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf the bios pulled from the APS website. If you want a look at the bios, a look at the link, assess the expert opinion, it is informative of the state of the science and level of certainty on important issues. The transcripts are also available. Interesting to note that the APS sub-committee chose these 6 after discussion with the society at large. They will use this document to form a new official statement that they hope is based on a consensus within the society. Currently their report on the workshop is not available to non-aps members until the process is complete, but it should be very interesting. APS timeline in regard to workshop http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate/index.cfm APS thought process on workshop http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate/article.cfm This workshop represents serious discussion among experts, not fluffing by right wing media. Acme et al. On 15 year time spans, there needs to be a distinction between limitations and useless. A 15 year time span offers serious time limitations, but that doesn't mean it can't be instructive for debate while acknowledging important caveats. Note Dr.Collins, a lead author for IPCC and expert on modelling on the importance of the period extending out to 20 years... Additional post. Swansont. I hope to convey the nature of the debate among experts in regard to IPCC modelling, so better to establish the level of certainty on future climate predictions as represented by the IPCC. Additional note. With very limited success I should think. The question for me is does the IPCC summaries mischaracterize the state of expert opinion on climate modelling and future predictions, and that it is being widely convoluted with an established consensus of climate change and the principal of carbon emissions having an effect.

Did you have a read through the brief Watt website report from last year's APS workshop I linked. I am interested to know if that had any effect on your view? The problem is your confusing the consilience that brought about the definitive conclusion that the climate is changing and man is influencing that change through CO2 emissions with something different, the state of certainty on different modelled scenarios and the state of certainty that surrounds that specific field of science. It is a mistake to extend the former consensus into the latter, to convolute the two.

Alright, thanks guys

Is it considered acceptable on the forum to add later posts that simply merge?

Under the scenario of whereby I have just posted on a thread, and I choose to post again soon, when it is still possible to edit the first post, the second post always gets added onto the end of the first post. Is this the only way to post the second post, or can I post it separately? I find I run the risk of having added onto it and someone having replied to it in the mean time, also I like to use multiple posts when replying to multiple members.

In regard to selection bias. On this part of your comment, quite simply your right, what i said was not what I intended, and to be fair, I did twice make the point that the scientific process through peer review does sort out the problem with time, I agree, no where else in society can you find this. So yes ultimately the effect isn't equivalent, just the opposite. The problem here is considering the matter with the distinction of only two opposing sides and nothing in between, those who deny climate change and those who agree with the IPCC's latest report. No, this is no what I intended to draw your attention to.The point was much smaller that I was trying to address. Only consider your very first point in the first post you made, about actual emissions possibly not matching modelled emission scenarios, at the workshop both sides acknowledge that this is done by the models in the near term and they discuss the merits of extending the method in the long term, (as in messing around with emission scenarios). Also, it is not relevant that it is the Watt website, unless you actually think he lied about this particular point, which there would be no point in lying about. I wasn't trying to evaluate the above comments. I have no idea. I am trying to establish if there are experts who disagree with current IPCC positions and present the general line/ summary of their thinking, but I can't actually evaluate the technical merit over the IPCC's. I have some layman understanding and I do the best I can with it. I am confused. You asked did I have any science to discuss? and started discussing models, error ranges etc. I can't do that. I have no new science to offer. I only have other people's quotes, their assessments. Apply the last question to something not controversial, you use your best judgement. I don't have high confidence either way, but I have never been impressed with the idea that modelling the climate was going to be accurate given how complex it is. If this was a non-policy issue, and not controversial, I would not be taking sides or more likely not paying attention, as the papers are published for decades between squabbling factions as they argue about the different climate variables and sensitivity, feedbacks etc I think that debate has been ursurped by forces outside of the peer review process and that is unusual for science. Now those who question the science of the modelling are in danger of being associated with all skeptics.