E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Don Emmert / AFP - Getty Images file
An Bull Elk with snow on his face is seen near the road between Banff and Lake Louise, Alberta, Canada, in this 2009 photo. Elk are one of the groups of mammals researchers say will be able adapt surroundings and keep up with climate change.
As the climate changes over the next century, the ranges of nearly 90 percent of mammal species will shrink — in many cases because animals won't be able to get to areas where the climate is going to become suitable for them, says new research.
Across the Western Hemisphere, the study also found, nearly 10 percent of mammals will be unable to move fast enough to keep up with changes in climate. In some areas, such as the Amazon, that number will be as high as 40 percent.
And while some animals will do just fine or even better than before, certain animals in certain places face catastrophic losses of survivable habitat. Most at risk are primates, which will likely lose 75 percent of their range because of both inhospitable climate and the inability to get to livable places.
Related: As temps rise, amphibians may vanish
"We could be underestimating the vulnerability of some species to climate change," said Carrie Schloss, an ecologist at the University of Washington.
"There have been a lot of projections done on species' ranges and where they are projected to be in the future based on where the climate will be suitable," she added. "But most don't tell you whether species can get from where they are today to where the climate will be suitable."
To make more accurate predictions of how mammals might be expected to fare in the coming decades, Schloss and colleagues collected information on 493 species of mammals whose future ranges had already been predicted through about the year 2100. Then, the researchers used known relationships between how big an animal is and what it eats to estimate how far a given species could be expected to move from generation to generation.
Previous studies have shown that climate change will expand the ranges where some species will be able to live. But when Schloss' team factored in whether animals could actually get to these newly suitable habitats, they found that true ranges will actually shrink in nearly 60 percent of those cases. Range size will shrink by an average of nearly 40 percent.
Animals in tropical regions face the biggest risks, the researchers report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, possibly because species there are extra-sensitive to even small changes in climate.
Across the moist subtropical regions of the western hemisphere, for example, nearly 15 percent of mammals will likely be left behind by climate change. That number jumps to nearly 40 percent in some areas of the Amazon. In those places, species that can only migrate about one kilometer (0.6 miles) each year would need to move eight times faster to keep up with climate-induced shifts in their ideal rangelands.
Related: Climate change could shrink animals
Other areas that are likely to experience climate changes that are more extreme than many species will be able to handle include the Yucatan Peninsula, the Appalachian Mountains and the southeastern United States. Primates are in particularly trouble, as are moles and shrews.
Jeffrey Arguedas / EPA
Sloths are expected to keep up with climate change, according to research detailed on Monday.
Animals expected to be able to keep up with climate change include carnivores, armadillos, sloths, coyotes, elk and moose. Many of these animals can move large enough distances to get them to where they'll need to go.
The new study should help researchers focus conservation efforts by, for example, figuring out where to create corridors for animals that will need to migrate in the face of climate change, said David Ackerly, an ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
"Unfortunately, there is not a lot of good news in analyses of climate impacts," he said. "Rapid change will be disruptive. The question is: Where will impacts be worse and what can we do?"
More from Discovery.com:
- Video: 3 questions on climate change
- As temps rise, amphibians may vanish
- Climate change could shrink animals
Leave a Comment:
Hot or cold, which is it? Maybe we should start a taxi service for the extremely slow moving animals. Go public and sell for billions of dollars to buy a/c or natual gas for heat. All this, if you believe the hot house theory!
Hey, we've always had hurricanes in Vermont and a tornado season like this last one. There's absolutely nothing wrong. You would have made a great band member on the Titanic.
there has been climate change since the begining of time and man has nothing at all to do with it
Well bill, the scientific community begs to disagree with you.
bill, the fact that humans were not responsible for past climate changes does not mean we can't be responsible NOW. And since science shows us we probably are, you need to check again.
You warmmongers are so behind the power curve.
jock, what science is that? the science of the melting himalayan glaciers? lol or how about the melting polar ice caps? maybe an ice free summer in the arctic? nah. or maybe the end of the polar bear? nah maybe the heat? that it , the heat. i mean it hasnt gotten hotter in the last 15 years but with all the co2 being put into the air by us bad humans (all 3 % of the co2 produced) i am sure algore and hansen will be correct soon enough. wait wait, maybe its the signature hot spot in the troposphere that they assured us would mean this warming (what warming????) is anthropogenic. no hot spot, no problem. sea level rise? nah, obama was right, he did stop the rate of sea level rise. matter of fact is it trending negative now? let's see, what science are you talking about?
Ricky, overall the Himalayan glaciers ARE melting. As are the polar ice caps (both sea and land based). Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice cap, the Antarctic ice cap, and the remaining glaciers worldwide are each losing hundreds of cubic kilometers of ice each year (about 1,000 km^3 in total). Only Antarctic sea ice is remaining relatively stable, and that appears to be due to some temporary conditions that are unlikely to last.
A simple extrapolation has an ice free summer in the Arctic within a few decades, and an ice free WINTER within this century. The predictions I've seen don't assume that pace of melting will continue, but on the other hand it has far outpaced predictions so far.
Your claim about the last 15 years is a classic case of the escalator lie: h
A pox on the censor here. What is the problem with linking to other sites??
Here's another attempt to link to the escalator graph: http:/ /www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
I think these people are seriously underestimating nature. Many of those species predated us on this planet by millions of years, and they will be here millions of years after we are long gone.
What's really important to remember is that the rate and magnitude of climate change is unprecedented. This study is important for that reason-- it compares the rate of climate change with the dispersal ability of the animals. Remember, too, that the earth is much more fragmented than it was millions of years ago-- there are many more barriers to dispersal. Also, in the last three million years, the earth has been under ice age conditions more often than in warm interglacials like the one we're living in now. We're pushing the climate system outside of the natural range of variability that has been the evolutionary backdrop for the species we see today.
And just to nitpick-- most of those species weren't around millions of years ago, but their ancestors were.
There is no evidence we have pushed the climate one way or another vs. nature it
self. Your taking conjecture based on less than one hundred years of solid
research and record keeping at a usable level and making projections that
generally are going to turnout wrong because they are conjecture. when you have
a real time span of accurate record keeping then maybe ,and only maybe , can one
start to prodict what may happen. after all how often do the climate folks that
give you your daily weather reports screw up? Take what you hear with a grain of
salt and be skeptical for a change instead of buying in to leftist guilt and
right wing conspiracies.
According to NOAA, the global temperature has risen MORE THAN ONE DEGREE FAHRENHEIT SINCE 1900. At that rate, the average mammal would have to be a multiple amputee not to be able to get ahead of it.
The problem with NOAA is that they are also using conjecture when it comes to the world temps for the last hundred years. It's only been about the last fifty that we have had even a some what reasonable idea of that temp. rise or fall. and even now it's not all that accurate . When we get accurate info then we can begin to think about what were dealing with till the it's all conjecture designed to get the authors published and tenure if they can.
The reality is that it is probaly just another ice age cycle and a wasted effort worrying about it. Maybe if we're lucky it'll thin out the Worlds' oversupply of humans.
B-U-G-S...the next big thing
I sorry Jac but your not very accurate on your information. There has been times with rapid change in climate even at this rate if not even more. The problem is your just stating what political pundits and people who support them do. Every Mega eruption there has been major climate changes. Also large asteroids, hot & cold cycles of the sun, ect have all produced results in a much faster rate. One volcanic eruption alone reduced the global temp by 1 degree. Even the year with no summer the year of 1816, was caused by a solar low event and a volcano effect. This dropped a foot of snow in Quebec and was all caused by the sun and sulfur ash and other gaseous pollutants released by a large volcano event. If i was everyone I would read more on history than what some person on a soap box. I do believe we should do things to be done in cleaner ways but some people are trying to push things as if they were scientific law instead of theory. That is just wrong.
most species have already seen large declines due human population expansion, pollution etc.
They didn't have man made obstructions to their migratory range, like roads, cities, railroads, etc.
And they probably didn't see climate changes as fast as the current one.
Tim Harb
No you are misinformed. Your comment is a Gish Gallop of half truths.
Volcanoes cool the planet for a couple of years typically, because the aerosols they emit only stay in the atmosphere that long.
CO2 stays resident in the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of years.
Volcanoes also emit greenhouse gases, but human emissions are over 100 times as much as volcanoes put out on average
Do you actually imagine that tens of thousands of climate scientists and close to 200 years of climate research haven't studied all the things you mention?
Get a grip on reality dude. You know nothing about climate science
"some person on a soap box." ????
You mean like the 97-98% of climate scientists who actually do any research, and virtually every major professional science organization in the world??
Those are just some people on soap boxes?
Do yourself a favor. Go learn something real.
My recommendation is Skeptica Science website
sailrick, your 98% is complete bull @!$%# and you know it.
Ricky, here's the basis for the 97% claim: h
If you have contrary evidence, I'm sure the PNAS will be happy to publish your rebuttal.
[My apologies for needing to break up the URL, but otherwise it vanishes.]
Damn the censor here. Okay, here's the link again: http:/ /www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
What a piece of work is a man, How noble in
Reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving
how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel!
in apprehension how like a god, the beauty of the
world, the paragon of animals. and yet to me, what is
this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me;
Hair or Shakespeare take your choice. When humans have eliminated other species they will be next and it will be too late.
Too late for what? If we fade away and another form of life takes our place it's natures way of telling us were obsolete. Nothing last forever!
Sure other forms of life will take the place of those lost, over tens or hundreds of millions of years.
How unwise of you to dismiss it all, since we are causing the problem, and can decide to stop.
sailrick, where is the increase in global temps? hasnt been any in 15 years. how can u ignore simple truths? nothing that hansen, erlich, holdren, chu, algore, savage predicted is coming true. sea ice, ice thickness ice free summers, polar bear decline, heat ("a travesty we cant find it"), glacier decline........cold proves ur cause, dry proves ur cause, humid , hot wet all prove ur cause. when is something rational going to come from these guys that proves true. does nothing give you pause? nothing???????
Ricky, if you're looking for the increase, read here: http:/ /iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf
The authors show that if you remove the random variables that affect temperatures year to year (sometimes up and sometimes down, but zero on average) the remaining trend is a very clear and steady upward climb.
OMG the sky is falling! You'd better hide.
Come on when are you lefties in the press gonna quit with the disinformation
about the climate change gobbledy gook? A two to three degree change over a
period of a hundred years isn't going to have anywheres near the impact your
supposed researchers claim. But it will make a bunch of them a living by trying
to scare the hell out of the rest of us so they can publish BS PC pap that is
peer reviewed by other quacks and cranks trying to get on the publishing band
wagon as well.
The climate fluctuates get over it.
It can be a big deal but you would notice it and it wouldn't be just a change of a few degrees it would be
much greater and so rapid an onset as to be unnoticeable by anyone . Till such
time give it a break. The whole PC mea culpa bit just gets old and if you don't
think I know what I'm talking about, your wrong because I've studied Climatology
in University (both USF and Harvard) and believe me, if half of what they predicted
10 let alone 20 or 30 (Remember Paul Erlich and his pop. Bomb?)years ago as
happening now people would be up in arms about getting science and the governments of
the world to do something . Instead we get a bunch of deadbeat lazy self
entitled jerks trashing our urban cores with their dirty villages and protesting
nonsense, and disinformation from what used to be a press that was skeptical of
such alarmist junk being proffered off on the public. Now we have public school
educated journalists who never question anything and swallow anything that
smacks of antiAmericanism or antiEstablisment.When are we going to return to
real investigative press releases instead of "The sky is falling" Chicken Little
BS,like the item above?
The above should say"Noticeable by anyone " not the other way around ,my bad.
That climate change is occurring and that it is due to mankind's activities is not in dispute in scientific circles, no matter what folks like oregonjoker would like to think. Oregonjoker - what an appropriate moniker.
so gumps have you done your part to combat climate change ,and stopped using fossil fuels like gasoline and electricity if not dont tell others to stop
No, because there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it. We're not going to stop using fossil fuels or do anything else that will dramatically change our way of life. But that doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for climate change. Personally, I don't reallyl give a horse's patoot - I'll be dead in, say, 20 years.
Gumps, wrong on your part. What you call climate change is a left wing term for Global Warming and it is false info. Why do I say this? Because I'm a trained (USF and Harvard) Climatologist. The majority of my peers don't agree with your outlook and relie on real evidence not trumped up bull designed to get fools like you worked up and in a lather of of anti any thing that works in favor of Ludditeism. I'm sorry to tell you there is no stasis in the climate and never will be . It fluctuates regardless of humans and our polluting the visible atmosphere. Stop and think, one volcano in 10 seconds of a major eruption can put out more pollutants than mankind has in their entire history. and they erupt every day of the week. Just look at the undersea volcano they discovered recently off of New Zealand it pumps out toxic crap 24/7 yet your not squawking about that . So why do you think were so destructive? Listening to a biased left wing press will get you in trouble every time when it comes to real facts.
oregonjoker
"A two to three degree change over a period of a hundred years isn't going to have anywheres near the impact your supposed researchers claim. "
Supposed researchers? what gives you the ability to make such a statement? Stupidity would be my guess. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you are woefully misinformed.
Do you think just a few degrees difference in global average temperature is no big deal?
People don't realize that a few degrees difference in global temperature is HUGE.
To put things in perspective-- there is only about 5 C difference between today's avg. global temperature and the temperature at the height of the last full blown ice age, about 20,000 years ago.
With just 0.8 C warming from pre industrial times, we already have big effects observable.
Melting polar ice caps and glaciers world wide.
All kinds of species having their migration, hibernation, feeding and breeding times confused because of the changing seasons, early spring and late fall.
We already have pine bark beetles devastating western conifer forests in North America, because they are surviving winters that are warmer than in the past.
We already have sea levels rising at about 3 mm year.
We already have an increased frequency of severe weather events worldwide.
We know the oceans are warming as well as the atmosphere.
There is already 4% more moisture in the air than 50 years ago, because warm air holds more moisture.
What we hope to do is limit the warming to 2 C this century, which will in itself bring huge challenges from climate change.
At 3 C warming 20-50% of species will go extinct.
At 4 C warming, civilization will fall apart world wide.
Any warmer than that and most species on Earth could go extinct.
Humans are pretty good at adaptation and it's always possible, even likely that small pockets of humans might survive in certain locations. But for all practical purposes, it would be the end of the world for our civilization.
What many fail to understand, particularly skeptics who go on about climate changes in the distant past, is that the rate of warming and the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are about 10 times faster than warming from natural causes in the earth's past.
Essentially, we are taking 65-100 million years of accumlated carbon and putting it into the atmosphere, and therefore into the short term carbon cycle, in a few hundred years. That's like a nanosecond in geological time scales. That's what we do when we burn coal.
And on our current path of greenhouse gas emissions, that's where we are heading. Even if it only warms 3 C this century, the warming will continue for a long time after that. We don't want to get the ball rolling that fast.
We will have created a world that humans have never experienced.
But the GOP congress, is full of science illiterate people, who spout off willfully ignorant comments about climate change and energy.
Climate science is extremely complicated and involves about a dozen or more areas of science specialization. For the average person to think they are in a position to question the science agreed on by virtually every major science organization in the world, is just STUPID.
"Dr. Matt Huber (Purdue University) has to say on lessons we can learn from the past:
"Climate scientists don’t often talk about such grim long-term forecasts, Huber says, in part because skeptics, exaggerating scientific uncertainties, are always accusing them of alarmism. “We’ve basically been trying to edit ourselves”, Huber says. “Whenever we we see something really bad, we tend to hold off. The middle ground is actually worse than people think.
“If we continue down this road, there are really is no uncertainty. We’re headed for the Eocence. And we know what that’s like."
Dr. Matt Huber, October 2011.
[from Skeptical Science comment by Albatross]
SailRick, one has to wonder about the joker's credentials when his post is full of obvious spelling and grammar errors. Perhaps he would have us believe that Harvard and USF place no emphasis on being articulate and disciplined, but I doubt it.
But communication issues aside, I have a problem with joker trying so hard to impress us with terms like "stasis" and yet spews such nonsense as the bit about a single volcano spewing out "more pollutants and mankind in it's entire history". It would seem that NOAA disagrees with the joker. I offer the following:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf
Oregonjoker, I call complete and utter BS on your claim about being a climatologist. Your obvious ignorance of basic facts would be glaring for a high school graduate, let alone a trained scientist.
How exactly does a sloth move fast enough to adapt to climate change?
Seems like the author copy and pasted paragraphs from different articles without doing any actual research.
They hitch rides on hummingbirds
Oh! You mean like us?
David your area isn't climate change. Remember the same people state your going to slip into the sea after the big 10 to 11.0 hits and crashes you all down just like the movie 2012 :-p
Ask for a medication change, Tim
I would like to see my winters go away. I love citrus trees and fruit. I planted some key lime trees that are very cold sensitive. Hope global waming comes soon. Love key lime pie and like the idea of walking in my yard picking oranges , lemons , and tangerines.
idiot
no greg youre the idiot for believing this global warming nonsense
Not believe in what the majority of climate scientist are saying? No both of you are fking delusional.
We can make jokes and laugh at the prospect of a warming planet. What is not laughable is how we are going to feed and hydrate 7 billion plus people over the next 50 years, not to mention trying to preserve oxygen producing areas like the Amazon Rain Forest or Equatorial Africa and Asia. If we save these other creatures, we might learn to save ourselves.
another population bomb freak.
I agree with Tom. The problem isn't so much global warming; it is 7+ billion people and growing. We (people) are occupying every habitat and utilizing more and more resources. Many animals are simply being squeezed out. It is also important to realize that animal populations do not move in mass in response to changing conditions. Rather, individual animals colonize suitable adjoining habitat. Animals (or plants) living in isolated habitat pockets surrounded by human farms, suburbs, cities, etc. cannot move at all.
As to climate change, yes the climate is warming. Humans probably are helping. However, so far the peak global temperature is less than that during the last interglacial period. Also, during the most recent glacial retreat, the North American glacier retreated at about 500 feet per year. That was really drastic climate change! That stranded some flora (Franklinia alatamaha for example) south of their preferred range.
oregon, your knee-jerk "there couldn't possibly be any problem" rhetoric is really rather pathetic. Of COURSE we are overstripping the resources. That is out intention isn't it?
Dale, you hit the nail on the head. This is something that should be obvious but nobody wants to talk about: there are too damn many people on this planet. If you stop to think how many resources are needed to feed, cloth and house a human being it doesn't take much imagination to recognize that collectively, we are making a significant impact on our environment.
The obviouls solution is also something nobody wants to talk about because it is, well frankly, unpleasant. We need to cull the herd, either by a big rock falling out of the sky, a pandemic, or the most likely, war over scarce resources; any of these events will help solve the problem.
Dale,Gump, and Jock,
You all need to read the Population Bomb and then look at the date it was published and ask your selves has any of the predictions other than the population growth actually happened? NO it hasn't and what your carping and crowing about is just wrong . Wrong on every single front . go and study real information and stts rather than the alarmist crock of bull you were spoon fed in public schools and you'll find that there is no stasis to nature or glaciers or preferred ranges. It's all just a crap shoot and we need to learn to do the best with in that frame work , not the framework of stasis, in order to survive what maybe or may not be coming.
oregonjoker, I present for your consideration the gharial. This freshwater fish eating crocodilian once thrived in all the major rivers of the Indian subcontinent. Today its distribution is just 2% of the former range. Pollution and habitat loss have nearly wiped out this enormous, but harmless crocodilian. At the current rate of population growth, India will surpass China as the nation with the greatest population within a decade or two. The poverty rate in India is twice that of China. "The continent with the most rapid population growth, Africa, is actually growing poorer." The Population Bomb was simply premature. Mass starvation and major societal upheavals have already occurred in areas of Africa.
Tom3884745, I've got an idea. If we just release a little more CO2 then those forests which uptake CO2 to grow and then release enough oxygen into the atmosphere to support humans.
But we're slashing and burning rain forests, or have you not heard?
I have given up on trying to understand the naysayers and their agenda. They don't understand the science behind global warming. Scratch that....they don't believe in Science. If they understood the mechanism behind what carbon dioxide and methane causes in the atmosphere they might be able to grasp what is happening. I think they choose not to understand and then blurt out their unfounded opinions and conspiracy theories. Maybe they should take a trip to Venus for their next vacation. We would never have to hear from them again. They claim to care about their children and grandchildren's future. They do not. All they care about is money. Good luck with your money when there is no water to drink or no food to eat. I heard one person put it very eliquently. If there was only a 1% chance that what 98% of all scientists agree upon is true, with the stakes so high, would you not do all you can to stop it. I wish those that don't have a clue about what they are talking about would not post.
Arch,
98% where do you get your number , the Huffington post? Not even 50% agree
with your view point if you can even call such poor science a view. It's
actually more of an emotion. Get past the paranoia and do real research, not
biased, and you'll find the majority of climatologists don't agree with your
"View" Whoppie does however speaking of the View.Which is probably the source of
where you got your info in the first place.Unless you can understand things like
drip pan evaporation rates your the one who doesn't understand what drivel your
posting,yet you denigrate others better educated on the subject than you
are. By the way if we were as close to Sol as Venus is we would be cooked just like she is regardless of how much humans do or ever have done.
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.
Taken from Wikipedia.
oregon, you need to do your own research, and this time into actual science. The vast majority of climate scientists do in fact believe we are affecting the climate. The will still believe so tomorrow, and twenty years from now. Get used to it.
Greg,
All one needs to do to see why your wrong is look at your source. A Wiki source is about as good as one sheet of toilet paper when you have diarrhea. If your going to refute someone use real sources not the lazy mans way to mis and dis information. You do the readers and your self a disservice and make your self a chump for some overly eager but morally corrupt supposed scholars whom are desperate to get published in order to gain tenure and grant monies. Those crooks could care less whether or not what they say is true as long as a gullible public accepts their misdeeds as being true.
OregonJoker, the 98% figure comes from this 2008 study: http:/ /www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
Basically, it shows that the more a scientist knows about geology and climate, and the more fundamental, diverse, and productive their research has been, the more convinced they are that human activity is warming the planet.
Of course I would expect a denier to say such false things.
Since when was 10% or even 40% defined as "MOST"? Just sayin.
The article refers to 90% of all mammalian species. The last I checked, that is "most".
Climate change is happening every year, El nino or El Nina. Caused by shift in solar storms, has no relation to anything were doing. Get used to it, nothing we can do to change it.
Troll.
You need to learn the difference between weather and climate.
Clearly all of you genius deniers missed the Pentagon report by those Hippies over at the Department of Defense who described climate change as one of the greatest challenges for the military. You may be sticking your head in the sand, but the people paid to defend us are already budgeting for it. Good thing it's them and not you!
David,
Yeah, the climate shifts. And one would expect the Military to be ready to adjust. But what does that have to do with what you speak off? NADA!
The military sees that stasis is not the norm and is taking it in to their accounts. Look at what happened to Napoleon because he thought the weather the year before in Russia was better. He didn't take nature at face value he looked at it emotionally with his desire for stasis and acted accordingly. Humans aren't having the impact you claim ,nature doesn't need us for dramatic shifts, look at the last few Ice Ages, who do you think caused them? It sure as hell wasn't Mammal farts or human activity it was nature its self. Get a grip and start by looking at things objectively rather than with your obviously leftist perspective, And by the way I'm a Libertarian and don't promote the right wing view either, I just push truth.
I've got a grip. i can grip the results of every scientific report that hasn't been commissioned by the oil companies. But if you can ignore thirty years of environmental science. If you can dismiss a pentagon report you clearly didn't bother to read. One can only ask what else you decide without reading. The DOD report very specifically mentions the need to face 'new and unique situations' that are the result of human activity. But hey,
"Don't bother me with the facts. I've already made up my mind."
I especially love how right wingers like so called libertarians show their true colors by trying to make this a left/right problem as opposed to a survival of mankind problem. You dismiss all the written evidence, assume that you know my politics and reduce it to a political problem, but hey, i need a grip? You need a book!
"Vote for Ron Paul and the polar caps will return to normal size."
Libertarians are nothing but socially liberal Republicans without money. I'm sure all the non-right people you have voted for in your life would fit on the head of a pin, just like the documentation of all your 'common sense facts'.
Don't make me laugh. You don't push truth, you spin it! Why aren't you over at Fox where your heart is? Before you come back at me about this, remember who brought up the politics. If you dish, you get.
it's survival of the fittest time. that goes for humans too.
And to think 30 years ago National Geographic was publishing 'Chicken Little' articles on the next Ice Age being just around the corner and what could we do to slow it down and survive. Geeze, the human race really believes they are smarter and in more control than Mother Nature. When she decides it's time to flush the toilet, there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it other than hang on for one helluva ride!!!!!
If you think you know more than 98% of the climate scientists out there please present your findings.
Greg,
There's that number again. Do you know how wrong it is? Look at real climatological reporting and you'll find your camp is a small vocal community that has been discredited but the left wing press likes so they continue to get air time when they have been rejected and ridiculed for false numbers and resulting stats.
Get an education from objective teachers that will teach you to think critically and not to follow every false profit that comes along with a load of leftist angst.
There's that lack of numbers again. Still playing politics with science, I see. I just love how you political deniers just pull 'facts' out of your asses. You can live in whatever bubble you want. But that vocal group happens to be the overwhelming voice on the subject with almost negligible dissent. The difference between our numbers is that you're talking about politicians and Greg and I are talking about scientists. You know, I'm old. None of this is goiing to mean squat to me. But it really pi**es me off when some idiot starts carrying water for agribusiness and the richest corporations in the world because they have a mind that thinks Ron Paul makes sense.
If I hadn't had kids I'd be writing, "SO long! Good luck!"
You do know what is showing when your head in in the sand, don't you?
I can't buy any hard data but when you look at earth from space it's hard to imagine we don't have any affect on climate.That being said,species go extinct all the time.Or persevere and adapt.{it's kinda funny too see some animals that HAVE survived.I mean how weird is a giraffe or armadillo!?"
I don't think there is anything particularly weird about giraffes or armadillos. However, Homo sapiens americansis obesis is pretty sad. However, joking aside, hard satellite data is only a little over 30 years old. I agree that it is difficult to imagine that we are not having an effect on climate.
When viewed from space human efforts hardly show at all. one good storm can show more results, change wise, when compared to human endeavors than you give credit for.
oregonjoker, in 1500, a squirrel could travel from Indiana to New York City and never have to touch the ground. Any view of the Eastern US now shows vast areas of open farmland. Central Ohio was once 100% forested. Now a space view shows open land. The central valley of California is naturally a semi-desert. A satellite view now shows green. At night the impact of humans is even more striking. Ever see the dramatic nighttime picture of Korea?
Placing your faith in the so-called expertise of climate scientists is much worse than than allowing a medieval doctor to operate on you! They have not even scratched the surface on understanding the complexity of our climate. And it is complete arrogance on their part and total gullibility of the the sheep that follow them. Compared to medical science how many other patients have climate scientists studied? Right now their recommendations to "save us" from co2 are the equivalent of healing sickness by sucking out the bad blood with leaches!
wils59, just because you are unwilling to accept the consequences does not make the problem go away. Climate change is real and not disputed within the scientific community. Bottom line: what you believe or don't believe isn't going to change reality.
Gumps spouts more nonsense. Climate science is like a quack doctor walking up to his very first patient. Never even studied a single cadaver. Just in time to see him exhale a single breath and declaring he is dieing. HURRY ACT QUICK, I MUST CUT THE DEMON FROM HIS CHEST NOW!
Don't think I want to go along with him.
wils, we have actually learned a great deal about how the climate works, but I don't understand your logic that ignorance should mean business as usual. Do you think perhaps we should look into the possibility that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere might increase the greenhouse effect?
Wils,
Thank the Lord, a voice in the wilderness. Diogenes is looking for you. Your a refreshing breeze on a hot day my friend.
And for you Lefties and Atheists the above is just a phrase as I'm Ignostic and think your just as nuts as the Rightists and the Religious.
Don't know what Ignostic means or is? Look it up lazy!
this kind of talk out of both sides of your mouth at once is what we've come to expect.
Thank whoever!
I bet a climate scientist could make up any crap he wanted to and gumps would believe it. I bet he would even believe them if they told him something totally laughable. You know, something as stupid as "there are accurate temperature gauges inside of trees". I bet he would even believe that!
Typical right wing response. I don't like it, so it doesn't exist. Perhaps the GOP symbol should be an Ostrich. It really really doesn't matter what you believe wils59 - it's not going to change the inevitable outcome. So go ahead and spout your right wing lunatic fringe rhetoric all you want.
"Typical right wing response. I don't like it, so it doesn't exist.
Is that the best you can do Gumps? How about it, do you believe there are accurate thermometers hidden inside trees or not? Your entire CAGW crap falls apart at the seams if they are not in there. That is the question liberals do not want asked. Are you in denial about tree thermometers? Do you even know who Keith Briffa and Michael Mann are?
PLEASE TELL ME LIBERALS, DO YOU BELIEVE THERE ARE THERMOMETERS INSIDE TREES OR NOT? YOU ARE THE ONES WITH THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND!
You remaining climate change believers should listen to the “former believer” majority. They know both sides of the issue. So listen up and stop panicking.
All of science agrees that:
A: There will be effects from Human CO2.
B: Those effects could be from negligible to nothing to complete runaway and unstoppable warming (death). GEE! What’s not to agree with?
A consultant’s wet dream come true is to study the effects, almost never causes, of an assumed to be real crisis that couldn’t be proven or disproved. That is why every single scientist and organization has their own special and unique view of climate change’s effects. And proof of the CO2 exaggeration of death for all, is the fact that there are millions in science and only dozens of climate change protesters in the streets. People in science have kids too that THEY themselves have doomed to a CO2 demise as well. Deny that. Exaggerated science trumps consensus science and real planet lovers are happy a crisis was avoided. It wasn’t a hoax, it was caused by the very greed you say causes climate change itself. Just because it feels good to be concerned about the planet “dying”, doesn’t excuse condemning our kids with exaggerated political science. You can’t love a planet with fear.
Causes? Tree rings? Ice cores? These WERE not the magical dipsticks of time like in a Harry Potter movie.
“climate change is a threat to the planet” –Earth Hour
"unstoppable warming, catastrophic, irreversible heating, deadly sea level rise.....etc.” –IPCC
The politics of science is no different from any other form of politics and to not know that disqualifies any remaining believers as progressives. Real progressives doubt and challenge authority, especially an authority that condemns our kids to the greenhouse gas ovens.
You can’t love a planet with fear.
oregonjoker, I seriously doubt that you are a climatologist. Why do I say this? Well, call me crazy, but I'd think someone who was educated at USF and Harvard would know how to spell and use better grammar. Also, as a climatologist, you would know that the term "climate change" was generally accepted by the scientific community as being more accurate than Global Warming, because it encompasses all of the severe weather we're experiencing - it is not a "left wing term".
Perhaps you should applyl for the CEO position at Yahoo... On second thought, maybe that won't due, they've already been burned by a liar.
Paul, just because you refuse to accept the science doesn't make it untrue. Nature doesn't give a whit about political agendas.
Paul,
I think I agree with you.To commit resources to a false cause is worse than to be hesitant to act immediately when all of the facts aren't quite jelled yet. And, yes, I remember Alexanders exhortation to remember that"He whom hesitates is lost" One needs to have their proverbial "Ducks in a huddle " before they strike out on a bold new plan. Look at the mess Pelosy and Obama set up in the medical field because they exhorted persons to vote yes on a bill they hadn't even read, simply because the leadership said "Trust us".
Ummm.....doesn't the Theory of Evolution cover this?
"Inconvenient", wouldn't you say?
Yeah -- it says that after a major extinction event just as this, new species will emerge over the next several millennia.
In the meantime, we're still screwed.
Most of the commentors here know nothing about climate science, but feel compelled to share their ignorance with the world.
Virtually every major science organization int he world agrees on AGW. 97-98% of working climate scientists agree.
Comments here show a lack of understanding of how science works.
There is never absolute proof in science, only in mathematics.
In science, a theory is valid, when a sufficient amount of evidence that holds up to the scrutiny of other scientists in the peer review process is amassed.
The same scientific process that has brought you all the modern marvels of technology is behind climate science. Skepticism is an important part of the scientific process. All real scientists are skeptical. Deniers are not skeptics.
There is a mountain of evidence for AGW. It is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific theory in history.
There is no competing theory for global warming. All there is, are disproven skeptic hypotheses.
Gravity is a theory.
See here:
"Climate Scientists Defend IPCC Peer Review as Most Rigorous in History"
by Stacy Feldman at Inside Climate News - Feb 26th, 2010
"Nicholls, a professor at Monash University in Victoria, Australia, said the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment report was subjected to several rigorous tiers of review. The study cites over 10,000 papers from the scientific literature, "most of which have already been through the peer-review process to get into the scientific literature."
The report went through four separate reviews and received 90,000 comments from 2,500 reviewers, all of which are publicly available, along with the responses of the authors, Nicholls said."
{from Inside Climate News}
Over 100 professional science organizations, of international and national standing, have issued statements as to the validity of AGW and that we must act immediately.
This includes every national academy of science in the world.
The U.S. National Academy of Science has issued four such statements.
The prestigious science journal, Nature, has openly criticized the GOP for it's anti science stance, especially on climate change.
Only two professional science organizations in the world deny the science of climate change. And these two are the only ones most Republican politicians agree with.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Canadian Associations of Petroleum Geologists
Remember, this is who the GOP candidates and most GOP congressmen think they know better than.
The following scientific organizations support the findings of the IPCC.
There are at least 30 more organizations of national or international standing not listed here.
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
NASA
Woods Hole Resesarch Center
US Geological Survey (USGS)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
American Association of State Climatologists
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 (the study authorized by the Bush administration, and then Edited by a Petroleum Institute lawyer under the The Oil and Coal industries used to give 60% of political donations to GOP and 40% to Dems
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
American Association of State Climatologists
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - (The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization)
British Antarctic Survey
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
Australian Coral Reef Society
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Science Council of Japan
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Institution of Engineers Australia
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
National Research Council
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
World Meteorological Organization
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
International Council on Science
American Physical Society (APS)
Australian Institute of Physics (AIP
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS
Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN)
Network of African Science Academies
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
InterAcademy Council (IAC)
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
European Federation of Geologists (EFG)
European Geosciences Union (EGU)
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Quaternary Association (AMQUA
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV
American Society for Microbiology
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters (SAF
If all these people are so smart and so accurate, then why can't the weatherman predict tomorrow's weather accurately. If they can't get it right in the extreme short term, there is no way that they can possibly have any clue about a hundred years from now.
There are simply too many variables to possibly predict. Plus, NO ONE can predict the future. Why would you believe what anyone says about what it will be like in a hundred years? That seems pretty gullible.
What if like everything else in nature, the earth balances and seeks equilibrium and more of one thing like CO2 is balanced out by another thing like faster growing and larger plants that require significantly less water which maintains equilibrium?
All life as we know it is carbon based. I do not think carbon is a threat to life in any way. If anything increasing the atmospheric carbon levels may even be good for all forms of life. The problem is that those hired to study the issue have or are hired by those with an agenda.
Do you live under a rock? They can predict very accurately tomorrows weather. It's 10 days and more out that start to get hard.
It doesn't take extreamly complex models to see what we are doing to the environment, but the do anyway.
What if Pink Unicorns can provide a solution.
That's the ticket. Sad.
Typical ignorant response.
Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
"Loeb (2012) takes an updated look at the issue and finds that, using observations rather than modeled estimates, the Earth's energy imbalance is consistent with heat building up with the Earth system. .........
They have this imbalance at 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2, much smaller than previous estimates, but the error margins are huge. Not unexpectedly the authors confirmed that heat is continuing to build up in the sub-surface ocean, which agrees with other recent studies on ocean heat.
The persistent energy imbalance measured by this study is essentially future global warming, or "warming in the pipeline". ....."
{at Skeptical Science}
{at Skeptical Science}
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website founded and run by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well.
The thermal inertia of the oceans, which is where most of the excess heat is going, creates a time lag in global warming. We are now seeing the warming from human emissions in the 1980s. We won't see the full result of our present emissions for about 20-30 years. If we could magically stop all our CO2 emissions today, about 0.6 C more warming would still be in the pipeline.
Here's why
Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
{at Skeptical Science - 3/16/11}
how can you work out whether the Earth is warming if you don't take account of all the places where it may be warming? And most commentary seems to only focus on surface temperatures. Which is only 3% of the Total Heat Content change.
Global Ocean Heat Content increase in the last 50 years
How much heat is that?
"This is a rate of heating of 133 Terawatts. Or 0.261 Watts/m2
133 Terrawatts is 2 Hiroshima bombs a second. Continually since 1961.
It would boil Sydney Harbour dry EVERY 12 HOURS!
But why don't we notice this? Because instead of all this heating happening just in Sydney Harbour, this is spread out through out the worlds oceans. And they are huge: approximately 2,300,000,000 times the size of Sydney Harbour.
So HEAT THAT BOILS THE HARBOR (every 12 hours) WOULD ONLY WARM THE ENTIRE OCEAN BY A FRACTION OF A DEGREE .
(my emphasis)
So we don't notice it much. Not that it isn't real, just that we don't notice it.
And if this much heat had instead gone into just warming the atmosphere - you know, that thing we call Climate -
it would have raised Air temperatures by around 42 °C over the last 1/2 Century!
(42 C change = 75.6 F change in temperature)
{at Skeptical Science - 3/16/11}
Good post. Thanks!
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website founded and run by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well.