Fungi Find May Alter View of Global Warming

[Lizard_King]

Emphasis on the "may", not just because global warming is an article of faith for many but because the actual impact remains to be seen. Nonetheless, interesting.

[Jason McCullough]

So finding fungi that produce lots of carbon dioxide means the earth is actually getting colder?

It remains to be seen whether these newly discovered communities of fungi -- not to mention all the other kinds of microbes yet to be found -- will dampen or strengthen predictions about rising temperatures on Earth. But global warming models can no longer ignore fungi in snowy regions and seasons as they have, scientists said -- especially because about 40 percent of Earth's landmass is covered with snow for at least part of the year.

[Rywill]

"'I read somewhere that the sun is getting hotter every year', said Tom genially. 'It seems to me that pretty soon the Earth's going to fall into the sun- or wait a minute- it's just the opposite- the sun is getting colder every year.'"

--F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

[bmulligan]

Could it be that our leading environmentalist scientists haven't accounted for all of the variables in our complex ecosystems? Could it be that we are not the cause of 'global warming'?

Naw, couldn't happen......experts don't lie. And besides, we have that 'hole' in the ozone layer; proof that humans are responsible for all the bad things in our environment. Especially Americans driving their gas guzzling SUV's!

[Lizard_King]

So finding fungi that produce lots of carbon dioxide means the earth is actually getting colder?

Do you purposely evade logic in some sort of Zen-like crusade for meaninglessness?
No, it means as bmulligan notes that there is a possibility that even more of the earth's warming is naturally created, and thus it leans in the direction of a cyclical understanding of global temperatures. That is, as opposed to the slide towards apocalypse you and algore are constantly describing.

[Midnight Son]

Everything is fine in the world today! Fossil fuels will last forever! The concentration of CO2 is not and has not risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution! The decade of the 1980's and then the 1990's were not the hottest on record. There is no overpopulation, potable water is not increasingly hard to find! Science is no more advanced than alchemy! Oh, the Bible is the literal truth! SUV's do not pollute 5 times more than cars while getting abysmal mileage due to legal loopholes! All over the world today people are coming together in harmony to cut taxes and be happy. Let's just all take our Prozac or Lithium and smile as our perfect world continues forever!!

(Let no one be swayed by evidence! Our beliefs are much stronger than mere evidence!)

[Jason McCullough]

That paragraph from the article again:

It remains to be seen whether these newly discovered communities of fungi -- not to mention all the other kinds of microbes yet to be found -- will dampen or strengthen predictions about rising temperatures on Earth. But global warming models can no longer ignore fungi in snowy regions and seasons as they have, scientists said -- especially because about 40 percent of Earth's landmass is covered with snow for at least part of the year.

So in other words, they've found a new bit of evidence but don't know what it means, and it makes you right?

[Rywill]

You're so funny. He said it "may, emphasis on the may" mean that the liberal view of global warming--espoused by folks like yourself--needs to be re-evaluated to take this new information into account. I think it's obvious that if it turns out that fungi have a significant effect, that means the presumption of humanity's effect must be correspondingly reduced, given that the overall temperature change remains the same. In what appears to be an effort to avoid admitting that, you instead pretend that Lizard King said (I guess) that global warming is all a crock or something, and then challenge him to prove that--when in fact it is you whose proof has taken a credibility hit and who should be reconsidering his conclusions.

And Midnight Son is even funnier, although I think his post pretty much says more than I ever could about how silly and unrelated to LK's point it is.

[Jason McCullough]

Rywill, the anti-global warming crowd claim every bit of revision to climate science, no matter how trivial it is, as proof the entire thing is a hoax. It's an organized campaign to discredit it, the same way creationists seize on every bit of disagreement among archealogists to discredit evolution.

And the larger point doesn't make much sense, either: let's say that the fungi are really what's driving the temperature exchange. Is the solution then to just ignore the temperature increase, and watch as the ocean levels rise? That seems to be the implication.

[Andrew Mayer]

Could it be that our leading environmentalist scientists haven't accounted for all of the variables in our complex ecosystems? Could it be that we are not the cause of 'global warming'?

Naw, couldn't happen......experts don't lie. And besides, we have that 'hole' in the ozone layer; proof that humans are responsible for all the bad things in our environment. Especially Americans driving their gas guzzling SUV's!

1) You don't need to know "all" the variables in a system to create a useful model.
2) Humans are not responsible for "all" the bad things in our environment. Nor are we responsible for none of them.
3)We know experts lie. They lie about global warming all the time, especially when paid to do so by large scale polluters.

Thinking that we can put billions of creatures on to the planet's surface and pump large amounts of gasses into the air with no effect is ludicrous on its face. There is always result. Complexity is only a bulwark against change up until the point that you destabilize the strange attractor. Then the system collapses, never to recover.

It strikes me as somewhat pathological to, on one hand, trumpet the power of systems models when it suits you (free-market capitalism), then steadfastly ignore the logic of the effects of similar models in a case where it is obviously more relevant (the environment).

[Linoleum]

Rywill, the anti-global warming crowd claim every bit of revision to climate science, no matter how trivial it is, as proof the entire thing is a hoax. It's an organized campaign to discredit it, the same way creationists seize on every bit of disagreement among archealogists to discredit evolution.

I fear you have it backwards. The vociferous global warming crowd refuse to acknowlege how little we know about global atmospheric and temperature tends over a timespan of several hundred years, much less several million. Any information that presents a picture that it is more complex than just Man mucking up the planet is decried because we must Do Something, no matter the cost and even when we don't understand the reasons or consequences.

Nice indirect attempt to brand anyone speaking out against global warming 'gospel' as being wild-eyed creationists. I bet they come from Texas and drive SUVs too. I really doubt any of these 15,000+ scientists are creationists.

Unfortunately science is not immune to politics and money. Vested interests from both stand in the way of getting a clear picture of the past, present and future of our global climate.

[Rywill]

Rywill, the anti-global warming crowd claim every bit of revision to climate science, no matter how trivial it is, as proof the entire thing is a hoax. It's an organized campaign to discredit it, the same way creationists seize on every bit of disagreement among archealogists to discredit evolution.

And the larger point doesn't make much sense, either: let's say that the fungi are really what's driving the temperature exchange. Is the solution then to just ignore the temperature increase, and watch as the ocean levels rise? That seems to be the implication.

You and I had this argument in the other global warming thread, so I won't rehash it in full. I'm not saying climate science is a hoax; most articles I've read are scientists saying "Temperature is going up and we're not entirely sure why," which I think is probably exactly true. OTOH, non-scientist environmentalists often seize on global warming and claim to know the cause, which by coincidence turns out to be three of the same things environmentalists have always hated: manufacturing, driving, and meat farming.

Presumably you will admit that clamping down on manufacturing, driving, and meat farming would involve serious and unpleasant changes to Americans' lives. So, while I wouldn't want to just ignore the temperature increase and watch as the ocean levels rise, I would even less like to cripple manufacturing, driving and meat farming, only to watch the temperature increase and ocean levels rise anyway because it turns out that the temperature rise is caused largely by natural phenomena that I failed to investigate or abate because I bought into a left-wing agenda that started with the premise "progress is bad" and worked backwards to the cause of global warming from there.

[Bub, Andrew]

1) You don't need to know "all" the variables in a system to create a useful model.
2) Humans are not responsible for "all" the bad things in our environment. Nor are we responsible for none of them.
3)We know experts lie. They lie about global warming all the time, especially when paid to do so by large scale polluters.

Thinking that we can put billions of creatures on to the planet's surface and pump large amounts of gasses into the air with no effect is ludicrous on its face. There is always result. Complexity is only a bulwark against change up until the point that you destabilize the strange attractor. Then the system collapses, never to recover.

It strikes me as somewhat pathological to, on one hand, trumpet the power of systems models when it suits you (free-market capitalism), then steadfastly ignore the logic of the effects of similar models in a case where it is obviously more relevant (the environment).

Nicely put Mayer. I don't know people are still posting.

[Kalle]

My view on this is that I don't care why global temperatures are rising. To rephrase that, I don't care if temperatures are rising because of man or because of natural events or both, I do care about the fact that they are rising.

Earthquakes and volcano eruptions are perfectly natural, but that does not mean that we wouldn't act to prevent them if we could. Why is global warming any different? I don't really think we are in any danger of seeing the polar caps melt anytime soon, but the impact of temperature increases on the global climate in terms of crop failure, forest fires, floods, etc means that we can't just sit still and watch nature have it's way.

[Rywill]

Kalle, how would you do anything about it if you didn't know why it was happening?

[Brian Koontz]

You're so funny. He said it "may, emphasis on the may" mean that the liberal view of global warming--espoused by folks like yourself--needs to be re-evaluated to take this new information into account. ... In what appears to be an effort to avoid admitting that, you instead pretend that Lizard King said (I guess) that global warming is all a crock or something, and then challenge him to prove that--when in fact it is you whose proof has taken a credibility hit and who should be reconsidering his conclusions.

You'll have to excuse Mr. McCullough. He's still reeling from witnessing Lizard_King's political birth a mere three days ago...

Qt3 woman Groans: AAHH!!!!

Doctor: Its coming, its coming...

{Jason McCullough anxiously looks on}

Doctor: Here it is! Its, its... a Conservative!

Jason McCullough falls to his knees and head uplifts pleadingly with an anguished scream: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

"Jesus christ LK, in the last couple of days you've soft-pedaled Charles Murray and cited John Lott as a reliable source. WTF?"

[Midnight Son]

Can we talk about evolution VS creationism next? :wink:

[Menzo]

I don't get it - are people suggesting that smog and other harmful effects of pollution could possibly be natural occurances? Perhaps they're being very specific about global warming, and in that, I agree - sure, there's a chance that it's just a huge coincidence that temperatures started rising precisely at the start of the industrial revolution.

But smog and the health effects of pollution can't really be argued as natural could they? Kids have asthma attacks, elderly people die, people get cancer, etc. This ain't natural - it's because of pollution.

[Rywill]

That's true, but a totally separate point. You may think, "Well who cares? They're both bad." And they are. But "What would I do to stop people from getting asthma?" might be a lot different than "What would I do to stop the end of worldwide civilization?"

[Ben Sones]

And the larger point doesn't make much sense, either: let's say that the fungi are really what's driving the temperature exchange. Is the solution then to just ignore the temperature increase, and watch as the ocean levels rise? That seems to be the implication.

This is a good example of bad science. There is no evidence that sea levels will rise as a result of the current global warming trend. According to a report by the NCPA, the current data is unclear on the effects of a warming climate on global sea levels. The pertinent bit:

The IPCC report asks whether the observed rise - however much it is - can be tied to the estimated average global temperature increase of 0.5 to 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit during the century. The IPCC examined five possible sources of sea level rise: thermal expansion of water as temperature rises, melting of inland glaciers, melting of Greenland's ice sheet, melting of Antarctica's ice sheets and changes in surface and ground water levels.

The IPCC concluded that, except for data from inland glaciers, there were insufficient data to demonstrate a temperature effect on sea level rise for the past 100 years.

The available data indicated that, based on models, the temperature increase could have caused anything from a 7 1/2-inch decline to a 14-inch rise in sea levels - amounting to a 22-inch range of uncertainty.

Since the 22-inch range of uncertainty in the IPCC's estimates of past sea level change is four times greater than the six-inch range of measured sea level rise, one could argue that our ability to forecast the effects of temperature on sea level rise is so limited as to be virtually worthless.

The data suggesting a decline in sea levels, BTW, is based on a theory that increased atmospheric water vapor would contribute to an increase in inland ice and snow accumulation (warmer climate = more water in the atmosphere = an increase in snow and ice falling in inland regions that becomes trapped and does not return to the ocean) that would more than offset the volume added to the world's oceans by melting glacial ice and thermal expansion. Obviously, common sense dictates that at some point the Earth could become so hot that even inland ice accumulation would slow or stop, but nobody is certain how hot the global climate would have to get for that to happen, or whether the current global warming trend will cause that to happen.

The key words here: nobody knows.

I think a larger worry would be the melting of the Arctic ice cap. That wouldn't cause ocean levels to rise, but there is ample evidence that it could cool the currents in the North Atlantic and end the climatic anomaly that makes most of Europe temperate. That would be a far greater disaster than projected increases in ocean levels.

I am fully in favor of figuring out what the hell is going on with our climate. And I think it's likely that we are contributing to the problem. I don't think we know how much we are contributing, or if halting our contribution will have any meaningful effect on global warming. I do think that tossing around random doomsday predictions like "you'll be sorry when the oceans rise!" helps the issue not at all. And I think attitudes like Kalle's--"I don't know what's going on, but let's do something about it"--are equally unhelpful in that they fuel arguments from the far right that the whole issue is just junk science and we should just ignore it. I don't think that would be in anyone's best interest.

[Midnight Son]

Ben, that report is 5 years old. We need some up-to-date data. The truth is out there.....

[Ben Sones]

I agree.

[Lizard_King]

1) You don't need to know "all" the variables in a system to create a useful model.

Sure. But when new, potentially significant factors come up, you have to reevaluate.

2) Humans are not responsible for "all" the bad things in our environment. Nor are we responsible for none of them.

Also, America is not responsible for all the bad things in the world. Nor are we responsible for none of them. This is a fun new means of debate...I think I shall call it Agreeing through Magic and Double Negatives.

3)We know experts lie. They lie about global warming all the time, especially when paid to do so by large scale polluters.

They also lie a great deal when they are forwarding sko socialist agenda, be it a roundly anti-progress one or one focused, laser-like, on the United States. Again, what is your point? All I am saying is that news like this, when it is given time to be borne out by further research, potentially pushes the balance in favour of the set of liars least favoured by you, apparently.

Thinking that we can put billions of creatures on to the planet's surface and pump large amounts of gasses into the air with no effect is ludicrous on its face. There is always result. Complexity is only a bulwark against change up until the point that you destabilize the strange attractor. Then the system collapses, never to recover.

Platitude+Altruism= CATASTROPHE. Also, when one fails to put the achievements of humans in proportion with the changes wrought "naturally", you end up with absurd solutions to problems that may or may not be crises. Like, say, crippling the first world in a misguided belief that economic advancement in the aggregate is not the primary factor in environmental improvement from the human perspective.

It strikes me as somewhat pathological to, on one hand, trumpet the power of systems models when it suits you (free-market capitalism), then steadfastly ignore the logic of the effects of similar models in a case where it is obviously more relevant (the environment).

Oh, the irony. Oh, the humanity. I hope your monocle popping out in indignation didn't damage your screen.
It is precisely NOT ignoring systems models, what I and (I believe) bmulligan and others are proposing. It is simply basing those models on factors that have a material impact, rather than ideological self-fulfilment.

Doctor: Here it is! Its, its... a Conservative!

Please remove your stake from my heart. It makes feeding on the infant children of the poor difficult.

[Midnight Son]

Here may be some:

"Warmer temperatures are expected to raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers, and melting parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Warmer temperatures also increase precipitation, as described below. Snowfall over Greenland and Antarctica is expected to increase by about 5 percent for every 1°F warming in temperatures. Increased snowfall tends to cause sea level to drop if the snow does not melt during the following summer, because the only other place for the water to be is the ocean. (The amount of water in the atmosphere is less than the water it takes to raise the oceans one millimeter). Considering all of these factors, the IPCC estimates that sea level will rise 9 to 88 cm by the year 2100. A recent EPA study estimated that global sea level has a 50 percent chance of rising 45 cm (1-1/2 ft) by the year 2100, but a 1-in-100 chance of a rise of about 110 cm (over 3-1/2 ft)."

Source: The EPA

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...eSeaLevel.html

[Midnight Son]

Hey Lizard, you don't have to worry. It seems that it may take a few hundred years for the shit to really hit the fan. You'll be long gone by then. After all, you are all that matters.

[Ben Sones]

Source: The EPA

That data was in the report than I linked, or at least the EPA predictions were (and they seem unchanged).

[Midnight Son]

The current EPA doesn't seem too interested in updating things. Or protecting the environment.

[Jason McCullough]

Why the hell does everyone assume the only way to stop global warming is returning to the stone age? There's a lot of ways to deal with it beyond Kyoto's stupidity; jesus christ, no one is suggesting the loony-tunes solution of stopping manufacturing. We could build gigantic automated carbon sinks, set up tradable pollution markets, subsidize alternative energy sources - in short, a million things. WTF?

Yes, climate models still need work, but the earth definitely is getting hotter. We know, for sure, that putting more carbon in the air makes the earth hotter; what else is there to go over? Some of it's probably a cycle, some of its human-made, but that doesn't matter when it comes to solutions.

Lino, opposing Kyoto isn't the same as declaring that global warming isn't man-made, or doesn't exist.

[Kalle]

Kalle, how would you do anything about it if you didn't know why it was happening?

I was trying to make it clear that I did not care about the *source* of the problem as much as I recognise that there is a problem and we most likely need to do something about it, if humanly possible.

Of course we need to find out the causes if we are to tackle the issue, but I really see no need for this whole distinction between "natural" and "manmade"when it comes to deciding a course of action. Either there is a problem, or there isn't, something research should help decide. If there is a problem we should try to fix it by any means necessary.

[Lizard_King]

Why the hell does everyone assume the only way to stop global warming is returning to the stone age? There's a lot of ways to deal with it beyond Kyoto's stupidity; jesus christ, no one is suggesting the loony-tunes solution of stopping manufacturing. We could build gigantic automated carbon sinks, set up tradable pollution markets, subsidize alternative energy sources - in short, a million things. WTF?

Agreeing...with...Jason...ANEURYSM...PAIN....

Yes, climate models still need work, but the earth definitely is getting hotter. We know, for sure, that putting more carbon in the air makes the earth hotter; what else is there to go over? Some of it's probably a cycle, some of its human-made, but that doesn't matter when it comes to solutions.

It doesn't? It really doesn't? I mean, if the marginal utility of reducing human pollution x % turns out to not be all that significant, it wouldn't matter to your solutions?
Also, on what timeline are you referring to absolute knowledge of the earth's warming? It wasn't so long ago people were concerned about another ice age.

Lino, opposing Kyoto isn't the same as declaring that global warming isn't man-made, or doesn't exist.

Also, not the same as saying it isn't wholly or even mostly manmade, or doesn't trump other priorities (which I think is about as far as anyone here has gone).