As Planet Heats Up Critters Are Moving Poleward and Uphill

|

This pika is moving on up.

A new study published in the current issue of Science reviewed the data from 54 scentific papers that mapped the habitat ranges of more than 2,000 species. As ScienceNow reports

On average, the team finds, creatures move both up mountains and farther away from the equator at a speed that keeps pace with the rate of climate change and at a pace that is far faster than previously predicted. …

The new study has plenty of limitations, [Chris] Thomas Chris [of the University of York in the United Kingdom] acknowledges. The scarcity of papers meant that most of those included targeted only Europe and North America, few were from the Southern Hemisphere, and no marine species were included. "We're prisoners of the data," he says. But by analyzing 54 papers that met their criteria, the researchers found that, on average, organisms move up hills at 12.2 meters per decade, twice the rate previously described in the literature. And they move away from the equator at 17.6 kilometers per decade, which is three times the rate previously described.

The researchers also calculated how far a species would have to move in a given region of the world to stay at the same temperature. The actual migration rates, on average, closely follow the rate of warming year by year in that region—strong evidence, the researchers say in their paper published in Science today, of a direct link to climate change.

Thomas was surprised that the species moved so fast over ground, where they have to move 50 to 60 kilometers on average to find a habitat 0.5°C cooler. "That's quite a long distance across human-dominated landscapes," he points out. In addition, he had assumed that the uphill rate would be faster, where species need to move less than 100 meters to drop 0.5°C, but the uphill migration rate was slower, a finding the researchers can't explain. Either species are now stuck on tops of mountains, Thomas speculates, or those in the Northern Hemisphere might be moving around mountains laterally to the colder north face.

Sifting through the data, the authors were also surprised to find there was no difference between taxonomic groups: plants move at the same rate as insects, and birds are no faster than mammals. But when they looked at individual species, they found that within these taxonomic groups, some species move much faster than others, such as the comma butterfly, which moved northward 220 kilometers in 2 decades. And 22% of species, including the Cirl bunting, even move in the opposite direction toward warmer temperatures, suggesting that they are more flexible to changing climates than others, Thomas says.

This is not the first time the movement of species has been cited as evidence for climate change. For example, back in 1974, Time magazine in its article "Another Ice Age?" cited reports that armadillos were retreating toward the south as evidence for global cooling. There had actually been a bit of cooling between the 1940s and 1970s, so it's no wonder armadillos headed south. 

This new study adds to the balance of the evidence that the planet has been warming in recent decades. If, as some skeptics assert, greenhouse gases are not significantly implicated in the recent warming, then they must convincingly supply other mechanisms for producing the increasing temperatures. As much as I would rather it not be the case, in my judgement, the skeptics have not yet done so. But the good news is that empirical data could well settle the question of whether or not climate computer model projections are accurate. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Parking Enforcement: "a conspiracy against the laity, going back to, you know, medieval times."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The sun is the primary source of climate change on Earth. Not too complicated.

    1. actually the earth’s orbit & rotation is the primary cause

      1. actually the earth’s orbit & rotation is the primary cause

        The orbit and rotation of the earth changed from 1940 to 1970?

        1. was an historical reference for the 5000 years of human existence

          1. a historical, never an. The h is not silent. Went to public school, eh?

            1. for 5000 years…wait, that was college

            2. Actually, the historical usage of “an historical” is slightly more complicated than you might think.

          2. Rule 83: Snark does not have to consistent with previous snark…even on the same thread.

      2. Earth’s orbit & rotation fluctuate slightly over time. The orbital path lengthens and shortens and also tilts back and forth. At least according to one of my science profs @ UT.

      3. And the earth orbits around….? “Anyone, Anyone, Bueller….?

    2. Are you saying that the change in climate is directly caused by chages in the output of the sun?

      1. It should be relatively trivial to measure the output of the sun from year to year and see if those changes are causing warming. Seems like it would be a slam dunk case to close the door on AGW skeptics.

        1. Seems like it would be a slam dunk case to close the door on AGW skeptics.

          No it has to do with cloud formation and weather or not clouds are a net positive or a net negative feed back.

          It is somewhat complicated.

          http://public.web.cern.ch/publ…..UD-en.html

          First the mechanism of how and if changes in the sun’s climate create more or less clouds then you need to show that clouds either heat up the planet or cool it.

          Of course the global warmists simply say everything causes the world to warm which is kind of weird seeing as how they also say man is causing it. Then they say all past warmings and cooling is because of changes in orbit and rotation but of course they also say water vapor is a net positive feedback which of course would mean the world would be have an inherently unstable climate…i mean if CO2 can increase the rate of water vapor thus warming the earth even more then why couldn’t random variations cause water vapor to increase…which in turn would cause more warming and more water vapor and hit an infinite feedback loop and turn the earth into a molten ball?

          Maybe we should ask Ron…he goes to AGW seminars and stuff so he is really smart about it and will be able to answer it for us.

          1. Positive feedback loops are almost always bullshit. Same for the “deflation spiral”. Somehow, we have pulled out of every deflation spiral in history. Huh.

          2. I wonder if burning so many strawmen all at once might be the actual cause of GW.

            1. Water vapor has nothing to do AGW?

              Good to know.

              1. How’d ya get that out of my comment?

                Odd.

          3. There’s also the issue of the strength of the sun’s magnetic field an how well it keeps extrasolar radiation and dust from reaching our planet. There’s some reason the other planets in our solar system have been warming and I don’t think it’s CO2. Just because we don’t know doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer.

            1. Have other planets really been getting warmer? I hear this one but I’ve never seen anything to back it up.

    3. THE BIG YELLOW ONE IS THE SUN!

      How can I be the first to quote Brian Regan?

  2. lalalalalalalalala – cant hear you.

  3. If, as some skeptics assert, greenhouse gases are not significantly implicated in the recent warming, then they must convincingly supply other mechanisms for producing the increasing temperatures.

    What’s wrong with the mechanisms (whether they are understood or not) that produced all the other climactic variations in the earth’s history?

    Since we, apparently, can’t explain climate variability before industrialization, I’ve always been a little baffled that we can explain it after industrialization.

    1. Like this “in 1974, Time magazine in its article “Another Ice Age?” cited reports that armadillos were retreating toward the south as evidence for global cooling.”

      What caused this?

      1. According to O2 the earth rotation and orbit changed.

        I wonder how much the climate changed when God stopped the sun in the sky as described in the bible?

        I wonder if he did the same thing from 1940 to 1970.

        1. dunno since God did that prior to the 5000 years of human existence

          1. dunno since God did that prior to the 5000 years of human existence

            God stopped the sun for Joshua…

            Was Joshua not a Human?

            1. Man did I ever have that god fella wrapped around my finger!

              no homo

    2. Belching these gasses into the atmosphere must have an effect on it.
      It just must.
      I mean, how can it not?
      We can show that the climate is changing. It is changing at a more rapid rate since we have developed tools to take accurate measurements.
      Since belching out all these gasses must have an effect, and the climate is changing, human activity must be the cause.

      This end my example of the fallacy known as “begging the question”.

    3. Non-falsifiable hypotheses are really cool. Let me tell you about Keynesian stimulus and aggregate demand, oh and string theory, I think they’ve got it down to only ten dimensions or something…

    4. What’s wrong with the mechanisms (whether they are understood or not) that produced all the other climactic variations in the earth’s history?

      The consistent argument has been that none of them happened this fast. Frogs, boiling water etc.

        1. I didn’t say it was true…

      1. The consistent argument has been that none of them happened this fast.

        Do we know that?

        Over what time periods, with what accuracy, etc.

        1. The Warmists seem to believe so.

  4. creatures move both up mountains and farther away from the equator at a speed that keeps pace with the rate of climate change and at a pace that is far faster than previously predicted

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Please tell me the exact “rate of climate change”. Right now. With evidence. So that I can use it in my own study.

    1. NPR talkes to farmers all the time who swear that th’farmin’ bidness ain’t what it used to be…

      Global Warming, QED

  5. Ron, AGW and general warming aside, a GIANT portion of my problem with the current “wisdom” of CO2 being a cause is that IT IS A TRAILING INDICATOR. Science is to be a priori…not ad hoc. When the warmists can put together data (not models, models aren’t data) that suggests something other than CO2 is a product of warming and not a cause then I may (and that is a big may) begin to take them seriosuly.

    1. CB: I assume that you are talking about the warm ups that produce interglacials? It is true that warming precedes CO2 increases, but the idea is that the initial warming occurs as a result of an increase in insolation in the Northern Hemisphere as a result of orbital changes. This initial warmup causes the oceans to release CO2 as a feedback which further increases warming, and so forth. If this scenario is correct, it is no wonder that CO2 increases are seen to follow rather than lead temperature increases. Is this what you’re talking about?

      1. Yes and no, because a strictly positive feedback loop would not be showing simple decade variance, it would be (as predicted) a one way street to hell but the empirical data does not show that. I see no hockey sticks in any recorded data, only in poorly constructed models.
        (and to this point, more heating of the oceans produces more cloud cover, these models have little to no accounting for the increased albedo of cloud cover thus ballacing the supposed effects, a long harped on flaw)

        I am also leaving out the discussions of
        1. What is the ideal climate?
        2. The data manipulation scnadals reduce credibility.
        3. Alternate proposals get little scientific review (see sun spot cycles).
        4. Freshman statistcs covers what a valid sample size is and 30 out of 4.5 billlion aint it (I’ll even be generous, 30 out of 10,000)

        All of that addds to my balance of data suggesting that the “official story” is fundamentally flawed.

        Want to make me happy? Use the ol’ scientific method. Make a prediction, devise experiment, have prediction of result be true, rinse, repeat.

        It only takes one brown cow.

        1. it would be (as predicted) a one way street to hell

          Exactly. If there is a point of no return, how did previous warmings ever cool?

          Use the ol’ scientific method.

          Why use science when you can use faith?

          1. To your point, the bigger concern should be a cooling planet since snowball earth lasted for almost 1 billion years…that is a tipping point! Warming has not been uninhabitable since the geologic record of life started about 1 billion years ago. Asteroids worry me more.

            1. What’s more interesting to me is that the study isn’t being used to show that the adaptability of animals to gradual temperature change is *less* of a reason for worry over a warming planet. But, no. BLAAAAAAAAGH!!!!! AGW!!!1!1! BOOGEYMAN!

              I still contend that I would rather live on a warming planet, than a cooling planet.

            2. Snowball Earth is a hypothesis.

              Also, it is hypothesized that it happened 3 times and none of these times lasted 1 billion years.

            3. since snowball earth lasted for almost 1 billion years…

              Awesome!

      2. but the idea is that the initial warming occurs as a result of an increase in insolation in the Northern Hemisphere as a result of orbital changes.

        So the MWP which warmists describe as isolated to the northern hemisphere was because of orbital changes?

        Also isn’t the current warming mostly isolated to the northern hemisphere today?

    2. Consensus! The science is settled! Thousands of climate scientists know more than you do!!

  6. OK wow, that actually makes a LOT of sense when you think about it. Wow.

    http://www.total-anon.at.tc

    1. Excellent point! And nice website!

  7. We need evidence, I plan to capture some squirrels and interrogate them. I’ll report my results here.

    1. “Stop chittering and answer the question, Mr. Snufflenuts!”

      1. “Stop chittering and answer the question, Mr. Snufflenuts!”

        …or Mrs. Snufflenuts gets it!

        1. In my mind, all squirrels have the same last name.

          1. I’m going to put his nuts in the wringer.

          2. I call them Target (not to be confused with the store where I purchased the rifle).

  8. Can WI provide us with evidence that Climate Change is caused by agriculture?

    1. PIRS: Here’s some

      1. Thanks! Interesting, too bad they didn’t have climate scientists back then to tell them how evil they were.

        1. Or how much of a hellscape they made of the planet!

    2. Agriculture is the root of all evil dude.

      1. The wages of sin shall be paid in wheat.

        1. If you can’t take the wheat get out of the kitchen.

          1. If you can’t take the wheat get out of the kitchen.

            I thought it just meant you had to go gluten-free.

        2. Hefeweizen in keg, Blackberry wheat* in fermenter. I had a productive morning.

          *At this point, its just another hefe, blackberries wont be added for another week or so.

          1. Yum. I spent the weekend pickling and making my own maraschino cherries.

            Depending on how you are planning to introduce the blackberries, I read an interesting article about using a pressure cooker to extract juice from fruit.

            1. Smush blackberries. Put in beer.

              Its a complicated method.

              1. Are you worried about wild yeast? I seems that could be a problem during maceration. The sugar in the berries would give it something to live on.

                1. Most wild yeasties die off at 2 to 3 percent alcohol. So adding fruit after you have built up some alcohol is not likely to produce off flavors or aromas from wild yeast. The sugar in the berries will be consumed by the innoculated yeast that is already perking away in the product.

                  1. OK. Although now I’m wondering how they make lambics that are over 3%.

                    1. By accident 😉

                    2. You can make some damn fine wines using native yeasts on the skins. For the first couple of days, all the yeasties are doing stuff (adding complex flavors and aromas), then the Saccharomyces cerevisiae takes over and ferments until all the sugar is gone. However, one wine industry expert said (in an article) that upwards of 10% of natural fermentations fail (taste or smell like shit) and that lots of bad wine disappears into brandy or bulk wines.

                    3. Its not really wild yeast as much as it is bacteria in the wood barrels that keep fermenting the lambics.

                      Actually, wild yeast wont be killed off by 2-3% alcohol, they will just be totally outnumbered by the good yeast. Its bacteria and stuff that (often) cant survive the alcohol.

                      And, yes, that contradicts what I said above, hence the (often).

                    4. I was under the impression that only Saccharomyces will survive much beyond the 3 or 4 percent alcohol level.

                      But yes, most bacteria die off by 2% or so (except for that damn shit that turns alcohol into vinegar).

                      And I was aware that the uniqueness of lambic was primarily due to bacteria, but I’m not a beer guy and don’t know the specifics.

                    5. Cantillon, for example, uses the same barrels over and over. They have a special breed of bacteria that lives in the wood of the barrel and munches on beer, souring it up nice and good and making it all horse-blankety.

                      Also, a few years back, they replaced the roof slats above the coolship in the brewery (where the wind blew in and down onto the coolship, bringing in the wild yeasts and etc from the fields). The flavor changed. They put the old slats back. The flavor changed back. There is funk living on those slats (they also dont clean out the attic space much, cobwebs are integral to the beer).

                      Plus the brewery cat. You know that has an effect.

                    6. I was only half-joking when I said “by accident”.

                    7. One of the excellent British breweries has been using the same slate fermenters forever. Same deal, I expect.

                    8. For anyone that actually care:

                      http://www.enologyinternationa…..yeast.html

                      A proponent of the vineyard theory is Robert K. Mortimer, Professor emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at UC Berkeley who has worked closely with several California winemakers studying the role of yeast in natural fermentations. He and others have shown that Saccharomyces cerevisiae is on the grapes but only on about 1 in 1,000 berries. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is referred to as the “true” wine yeast because its alcohol tolerance enables it to ferment up to and beyond 13% alcohol. Also on these grapes are other species of wild yeast, bacteria and mold. Generally, Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the least prevalent of these microbial species. When the grapes are crushed, all of these organisms enter the fermentation, whether inoculated or non-inoculated. For the first one to three days of a natural fermentation, the wild yeast predominate. As alcohol levels reaches 3-4%, the wild yeast give way to the increasing numbers of alcohol tolerant Saccharomyces so that by two to five days this yeast predominates. At the end of a natural fermentation usually only Saccharomyces cerevisiae is present. Professor Mortimer has shown that there is a multiplicity of strains (as many as 16) of this yeast in such fermentations

                    9. I once heard a fundie claim that in the time of Jesus, they drank grape juice, not wine.

                    10. It’s pretty much impossible to prevent grape juice from fermenting once the skins have been broken. So your fundie friend is full of shit.

                2. SF, wild yeast is a brewer’s friend, in the right circumstances. See Cantillon below.

              2. Freez; thaw; then smush. Releases more juice that way.

                1. They are currently frozen, so that will be the exact plan.

              3. Its a complicated method.

                …or a mortal sin!!! Blackberries?

                1. Yes blackberries. Got a problem with that?

                  You one of those raspberry wheat drinkers?

            2. Wait. Pickling and maraschino cherries?! You’re an enigma, SF.

              1. I’ve been trying to make extremely hot cucumber pickles for the Missus. This current batch might do the trick. Given the paucity of small pickling cucumbers at the farmer’s market this weekend, this might be the last batch this year. I also put up a batch of dilled French green beans.

                The cherries are just a lark. I’m trying to get away from those neon red ones in mixed drinks. I figure I might as well try it since I already make my own grenadine, orgeat and cocktail onions.

                1. Have you tried throwing in a habanero or two? That’s what my brother does.

                  1. I’ve been trying Serrano, trying to keep the “green” theme going with the pickles. The habanero batch was too fruity. Cayenne worked, if you use enough. And I lean heavy on the dill seed, mustard seed and garlic anyway.

                    What I’d really like is Vietnamese jalapenos. Those things are ridiculously hot most of the time. I’m going to try and keep the seeds when I go for pho in the spring and grow some.

                    I have a bunch of sport peppers that are ripe, so I’m going for those in the last batch, if I get one. If not, they will go in some hot giardiniera (Chicago style.)

        3. The wages of sin are an expensive infection.

      2. Yes, agriculture is the root of all evil. Now excuse me while I snarf down some cheezy poofs my mom got at the supermarket.

    3. See I told you libertards that agriculture was at the root of all this.

      SEE SEE SEE.

      Much like Joan Crawford I win again!

    4. ciVILization = eVIL = AGRiculture = AGRession = Iraq WAR = global WARming.

      1. VIL VIL AGR AGR WAR WAR

        dah do run run run Dah do run run.

        Echo echo echo…..

  9. “This is not the first time the movement of species has been cited as evidence for climate change. For example, back in 1974, Time magazine in its article “Another Ice Age?” cited reports that armadillos were retreating toward the south as evidence for global cooling.”

    I live in Florida and we now have armadillos living in my county. The armadillo is not native to Florida but unlike the Python it was not released into the wild by pet owners. It must have migrated here.

    1. oh noes, a dreaded wikipedia quote:

      “In the United States, the sole resident armadillo is the Nine-banded Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), which is most common in the central southernmost states, particularly Texas. Their range is as far east as South Carolina and Florida and as far north as Nebraska; they have been consistently expanding their range over the last century due to a lack of natural predators and have been found as far north as southern Illinois and Indiana”

      1. The armadillos will conquer us ALL! WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT US FROM THE ARMADILLO!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. ok. i was just pointing out that florida does seem to be part of it’s natural range.

          1. its

            *self flagellation*

          2. “ok. i was just pointing out that florida does seem to be part of its natural range.”

            Hmm, yes and no.

            “As European settlers, ranchers, and farmers spread southwest through the United States, they facilitated the invasion of D. novemcinctus by transforming the landscape into one that it would find both more accessible and more hospitable. The rise of farming and ranching in the southern U.S. demanded that regional rivers–including the Rio Grande, formerly impervious to armadillos–be diverted or lowered for irrigation. Fire suppression programs converted grasslands into densely-littered underbrush, the species’ preferred habitat. Settlers also displaced Native American hunter-gatherer cultures and pursued extensive hunting and predator-control campaigns against black bear (Ursus americanus), red wolf (Canis rufus), and coyote (C. latrans). Together these factors allowed 9BAs to migrate into the United States and presented them with large stretches of favorable habitat in which they faced a lessened threat of predation. Range expansion was then accelerated greatly by repeated anthropogenic dispersals, significantly the pet trade. The overall expansion rate of the 9BA has been calculated at 4-10 km per year, which is higher than would be expected from a mammal; this is likely the result of the concurrent action of multiple dispersal mechanisms.”

            http://www.columbia.edu/itc/ce…..nctus.html

            1. Fair enough. I’ll see you that, and raise you some bitching about Asian fauna crossing the bering straight 10k years ago.

            2. Armadillos swim gooder’n shit. I seen it in a video.

          3. They’ve been in FL as long as I can remember. Even driven on the Turnpike around dusk?

        2. I, for one, welcome our new armadillo overlords.

          1. I, for one, think that a massive military build up designed to counter the armadillo threat would end our economic problems in 18 months. And if it turns out the armadillos aren’t as big a threat as we thought, then we can at least say we’ve stimulated our economy back to health.

            1. Or we could just make armadillos eligible for food stamps.

              Food stamps create jobzz!

        3. The armadillos will conquer us ALL! WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT US FROM THE ARMADILLO!!!!!!!!!!!

          They are the only animals besides humans who carry leprosy. Just sayin.

          1. “[Armadillos] are the only animals besides humans who carry leprosy. Just sayin.”

            This is why I never fuck armadillos… or humans for that matter.

    2. Armadillos? Just wait till Rick Perry shows up…

    3. Armadillos have been in Florida for quite a while. As long as I’ve lived here, I think.

      And they do have natural predators: Cars.

      1. Well, they’ve been living there for at least the last 37 years.

        BTB…the Virginia Opossum has also expanded north – they are intolerant to cold. Global warming? No, increased urbanization. More warm, snuggly attics for them to sleep in and more trashcans and cat food dishes to provide food.

    4. Who cares? You do realize the border which separates Florida from the rest of the USA is an “imaginary line”? Actually, the USA is just a bunch of land. As long as Florida is attached to the rest of the USA, the armadillo is native to Florida. Doesn’t matter when the first one “arrived”.

  10. “We’re prisoners of the data,”

    “…, but I’ll be damned if I’m gonna let that prevent us from forming conclusions!”

    1. ^^THIS^^

      They fully admit that their data sample is stupid small and hopelessly flawed, yet still expect that their interpretation of said shitty data set be set in stone and that trillions of dollars be spent of their remedies.

  11. Joe M: The good news is that if, as some researchers assert, changes in solar irradiance are the main mechanism for recent climate change, the reduced sunspot activity in the recent solar cycles should lead to lower temperatures. As I noted, empirical data this decade could go a long way toward resolving the issue of just how accurate climate computer model projections are.

    I have changed my mind on this issue before and can change it again in the light of new evidence. As John Maynard Keynes evidently did not say: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

    1. Yes, I’ve been very keenly watching sunspot activity, which had ebbed to almost nothing at a time when it should have been back on the upswing. I look forward to seeing what the results of that ebb are.

      1. you must be blind by now.

    2. “solar irradiance” is that like solar radiance? This seems like a highly inflammable issue to me.

      1. Irregardless, the point is we’re all doomed.

      2. No, it’s a word: irradiance

        1. “Irregardless,” however. . .

          1. Are you misunderestimating me? I’ll go nucular on your ass!

            1. 😉

      3. Inflammable dates back to the 16th century. It actually predates flammable by two centuries. It should be looked at as inflame+able not in+flammable

        1. “enflame” you mean?

          1. Well, its’ antient spelling, anyway.

    3. As I noted, empirical data this decade could go a long way toward resolving the issue of just how accurate climate computer model projections are.

      Good idea. So are you proposing the AGW worshippers shut the fuck up about imposing carbon taxes and redistributing the wealth of industrialized nations until their data can be verified as accurate with nore than a fleeting level of certainty?

      1. You forget the Precautionary Principle.

        Someone warns of what might happen (anthropogenic global warming, feedback loops, tipping point, no return, mass extinctions, boiling oceans, THE END OF THE WORLD), and all possible precautions must be taken unless someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are wrong.

      2. As far as I know, Ron has not advocated the methods of mitigation proposed by the AGW crowd. And he is open to new data. I only disagree with him on how much constitutes a base from which to draw a conclusion. My threshold for suggestion AGW is accurate is much higher. In any system with millions of variables causation is an extrememly difficult thing to pin down.

        1. Especially when most of the focus is on only one of those million variables.

    4. Ron:
      I think the weight of the evidence – that I’ve seen – indicates that human activity has contributed to the warming we’ve seemed to experienced (note all the qualifiers).

      However, why can’t we “find” the hotspots in the atmosphere where this heat is being trapped? As I understand it, we can’t. It should be there if the science is right.

    5. The fact that you’ve “changed your mind before on this issue” does not reflect well on you. Maybe you should stop “making up your mind” for a while. Give it a rest. Wait for a foundation you can build your house on. And mostly, stop submitting weak articles like this animal migration one.

    1. Welcome to Seattle.

      Oh, and since that article… it’s gotten worse.

  12. AGW is possibly the stupidest issue around today. It’s going to be viewed like phrenology by people in the future. It’s that stupid, but hey, stupid is as stupid does.

    1. The stupidest issue around today is Michelle Bachman.

      1. The stupidest issue around today is Michelle Bachman.

        So stupid she voted against raising the debt ceiling.

    2. If you call it “stupid” enough times, it becomes true.

      1. If you call it “stupid” enough times, it becomes true.

        Yes.

      2. What kind of smartphone do you have? Is it Windows? iPhone? Android?

        1. What is all this phone nonsense with Rectal?

          1. Episiarch and his lover heller are chasing phantoms. Evidently, this “rather” (aka “rectal”) is or was a “troll” who got under their skins. Now, whenever somebody replies to one of Episiarch’s or heller’s comments in an unfavorable fashion, they evoke this “rather” and, for some reason, its phone. Hope this helps!

            1. One more the ignore list.

              Thank you faceless reasonable developer!

    3. …that is if those who live in the future aren’t even stupider still. A religion has been born, and its already the State religion in a number of places, and already there are calls for pogroms against the unbelievers.

    4. Were there two 24-hour television channels targeted at kids between the ages of 5 and 16 spending a considerable amount of their commercial time preaching phrenology?

    5. I’ve thought that for years. It will make people laugh when they see references to it in old magazines, TV shows, movies, etc.

  13. If, as some skeptics assert, greenhouse gases monkeys flying out of my butt are not significantly implicated in the recent warming, then they must convincingly supply other mechanisms for producing the increasing temperatures. As much as I would rather it not be the case, in my judgement, the skeptics have not yet done so.

  14. So there is a correlation between changing climate and migrated species. So if we erect walls to keep these critters in one place, we can stabilize the climate, right?

    1. Anybody else smell a Nobel prize for Kinnath?

      1. I do!

        1. Yeah well you got yours (The official name is the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne). It is not one of the Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895, but is commonly identified with them.) from a bank much like those who would open savings accounts used to get cheap toasters.

    2. “So there is a correlation between changing climate and migrated species. So if we erect walls to keep these critters in one place, we can stabilize the climate, right?”

      Gotta do something about all those illegal armadillos sneaking into the US, stealing habitat and jobs from the American armadillos somehow.

    1. “That subliminal, backwards message in heavy metal music is worse than we thought!”

  15. “If, as some skeptics assert, greenhouse gases are not significantly implicated in the recent warming, then they must convincingly supply other mechanisms for producing the increasing temperatures. ”

    Bullshit Ron. It is up to the people who assert that it is the cause. Why does the tie go to AGW? If I asserted that it was caused by unicorn farts, would it be up to everyone else to convincingly provide another mechanism? I don’t think so.

    Sometimes the mask slips Ron.

    1. Yeah, what the fuck?

      If someone on here makes a claim that seems sketchy, we demand a citation to support their statement. Somehow, Ron thinks that if a claim by the AGW crowd is made, it must somehow be definitively disproven.

      Fuck that, Ron. With all due respect, the burden of proof is on the ones making the claim, not on the ones disputing it’s cherry-picked data and pseudoscience.

      1. The default answer is “we don’t know for sure” not “it must be AGW”.

    2. John: You write: Bullshit Ron. It is up to the people who assert that it is the cause.

      That’s exactly what I think they’ve done. It is my judgement based on my reading the literature, talking with scores of climate scientists (both alarmists and denialists), and attending numerous scientific conferences that the hypothesis of AGW is, on balance, the likely cause of recent warming. In other words, they have supplied a lot of evidence for their hypothesis — the skeptics have not (yet) done the same for theirs, nor have they undermined the AGW hypothesis. Again, in my judgement.

      1. But they have not provided definitive proof. Until they do, then the burden is still on them, especially when we are talking changing policies and massively affecting people’s lives. Sorry but “probably true” doesn’t cut it. You either meet the burden or you don’t. And probably doesn’t meet it.

        1. While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, scientific “proof” can only ever be to the level of probably true. There is no absolute or definitive proof in science.

        2. What is “definitive proof”? Enough to convince a willfully ignorant minority of non-scientists? There is no “definitive” in science, there is just evidence. And you don’t get to play like the denier side doesn’t have a requirement for evidence, or that they are somehow the default position.

          Because really there’s a huge amount of claims on the denier side, most of them totally outlandish. Like, there’s a massive global conspiracy involving every scientific body on earth to hide the truth. That is not a thing for which evidence needs to be supplied to be proved wrong; it needs to be proved by itself.

          1. If it further enables government = definitive proof

            If it challenges or diminishes state power = eliminationist rhetoric

      2. And I take great issue with your judgement on the state of AGW proof. The people providing the proof have time and again proven themselves to be politically motivated liars. At this point nothing they say can be trusted post climategate. I really think the entire body of work needs to be thrown out and started from scratch.

        1. No agenda here…

        2. And I take great issue with your judgement on the state of AGW proof. The people providing the proof have time and again proven themselves to be politically motivated liars. At this point nothing they say can be trusted post climategate. I really think the entire body of work needs to be thrown out and started from scratch.

          Who have been shown to be the politically motivated liars? Right, the majority of researchers who’ve taken the time to investigate the matter and shown their work. You want years of work thrown out because of a couple of out-of-context emails. No, clearly you are the one motivated by reason.

          1. You want years of work thrown out because of a couple of out-of-context emails.

            You almost made it. The problem was their context, not the lack thereof.

            1. Oh crap. I didn’t think I’d be dealing with people who had read the 1000+ emails and were personally familiar with the researchers involved. Guess you’re right then.

              1. Oh, there’s plenty of problems with the emails, but the coding of the programs is the real problem.

                1. I’m not sure if you just moved the goal posts or what you did. Can you explain?

      3. Every bit of “evidence” is either a projection, an adjustment to raw data, or an outright fabrication or a study with an unreliably small sample set.

        Sorry, but this just doesn’t pass the smell test when they won’t release all of their methodology and/or the raw data.

        1. …this just doesn’t pass the smell test…

          Why, oh why have you not offered your Gandalfish truthalicious olfactory talents to the cause of enviro-science? Why have we not homed you on the mountain-top and entrusted you to holler down to us the news of any oncoming planet-wide ecoholocaust? Why does mankind suffer all this fear and doubt when we have your nose?

      4. the skeptics have not (yet) done the same for theirs

        You have to prove a negative?

        1. No, joshua corning, you have to read more carefully.

          If, as some skeptics assert, greenhouse gases are not significantly implicated in the recent warming, then they must convincingly supply other mechanisms for producing the increasing temperatures.

          The recent warming is acknowledged. Ron’s point was that the “skeptics” are offering explanations for it that don’t hold up to scrutiny while the scientists are.

      5. LOUD NOISES

      6. I have to disagree. The charts you post every month show ‘warming’ of, at most, .7 degree–with no stated margin of error that I’ve seen. Other charts, reports, and articles show a similar ‘warming’ trend.

        Seven tenths of a degree? The AGW crowd has yet to show any significant actual warming whatsoever.

        1. the chart shows a tend of .13 degree increase per decade over the past 30 years.

          Perhaps you are using Fahrenheit…and over a 100 year period.

          But yeah there is little physical evidence that climate sensitivity to increased CO2 is very much above a 1 degree C over the next hundred years.

          Nothing much worry about even if the current warming is caused by poeple.

    3. Do you have any idea how much methane there is in unicorn farts?!

      1. Also, since Obama was elected, the number of unicorns has increased vastly.

        1. yea i get to kill me some unicorns !

    4. “It is up to the people who assert that it is the cause. Why does the tie go to AGW?”

      Actually, having a contingency plan for potential threats is pretty standard.

      When I’m doing a development deal, it can take three years or more from start to finish, and there are hundreds of possible things that could ruin my deal at various points in the process…

      I don’t just ignore those threats until they materialize.

      The time to come up with a contingency plan should China invade Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines–isn’t after China invades Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines.

      The question of whether the money you’re spending on preparing to face a threat is worth it–considering the likelihood of the threat and the likely damage it will cause if it materializes? That’s an open legitimate question.

      …but the time to prepare for a threat isn’t after the threat materializes–even if I think the threat is unlikely.

      1. To properly prepare for a contingency, you have to know both the risk of it occurring and the cost of it occurring. If you don’t know that, you are just as likely to overshoot as you are to under prepare. Until you have some idea of those two factors, you are better off not doing anything.

        1. Yeah, you look for solutions with multiple uses.

          Using my analogy, a carrier group will work well in the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf or anywhere else a threat may materialize.

          The market solutions people are proposing likewise have multiple uses. I don’t want to rehash the same thread from yesterday, suffice it to say that a lot of us have come to associate the problems associated with AGW so thoroughly with socialist solutions and regulation–that the term AGW itself has become a code word for socialist solutions and regulation…

          And we need to buck that trend.

          I guarantee you, Bailey’s solutions and my solutions are libertarian solutions–if the wealth redistribution devotees on the left can use AGW to further their cause, there’s no reason why we libertarians and free market capitalists can’t use AGW to further our cause too.

          I refuse to believe that regulation and wealth redistribution schemes are the solution to AGW–or any other problem. And I think it’s really sad to see so many libertarians concede that part of the battlefield to Progressives.

          It’s like I used to say to my fellow Iraq War opponents back when so many of them were basing their opposition on Saddam Hussein not having WMD. I used to say–what are you gonna do if they find he had WMD? What will you base your opposition on then? Or are you just gonna concede the argument to the opposition?

          If AGW is real, and we don’t have libertarian solutions bouncing around in the public’s collective head, then all the Progressive and government regulation solutions WILL be the default solution.

          And I’m not willing to suffer that lyin’ down. I’m not willing to wait around for that contingency either. The time to make our case for what to do about AGW isn’t after the threat becomes painfully obvious.

          It’s like right freakin’ now.

          1. I have a simple answer for you Ken. Lets get as rich and productive as we possibly can and that will allow us to be better prepared for any contingency in the future. No matter what other factor there is, you are better off being wealthy than not.

            1. I agree. That’s the AGW solution with multiple uses–like the carrier group I was talking about.

              We should replace the income tax with a sales tax on carbon intensive products.

              I’ve been hoping we would replace the income tax with a sales tax all my life–and with AGW? I think we can split enough environmentalist support from the left to make that happen.

              Any environmentalist who isn’t willing to do what it takes to save the planet from AGW–if it means they have to give up wealth redistribution programs like the income tax? Aren’t real environmentalists.

              Likewise, any supply side, free enterprise capitalist who isn’t willing to replace the income tax with a sales tax–if it means the sales tax is on carbon emissions. Isn’t really a supply side, free enterprise capitalist.

              We may never get rid of the income tax any other way–and replacing the income tax with a sales tax is something we should be doing anyway–AGW or not AGW.

          2. Ken, what would your idea of a “libertarian solution to AGW” be? I can’t imagine how anything other than coercion would be involved. The forced creation of a “carbon market” certainly isn’t Libertarian.

            1. Sounds like a flaw in libertarianism, not a flaw in the evidence.

            2. See my comment at 12:57PM.

              I want to, for example, replace the income tax with a sale tax.

              Sales taxes are the most voluntary form of taxation because the taxpayer more or less willingly pays the tax when he chooses to make the purchase.

              1. When I bought a brand new truck, I was less willing to pay $2,000 in taxes than you might think.

                1. “When I bought a brand new truck, I was less willing to pay $2,000 in taxes than you might think.”

                  The point is that you did–more or less–willingly pay the tax.

                  We’d all like to pay less for things than we do–but we do pay sales taxes more or less willingly. We wouldn’t pay the tax if it wasn’t mandatory, but it’s still the most voluntary form of taxation. It’s certainly an improvement over the income tax, where you’re forced to pay the government just because you earned income.

                  It’s also more efficient from an economy wide standpoint because what the economy can afford to pay in taxes is taken into consideration with every purchase. With income taxes, if the economy can’t really afford to pay taxes, and the money would be better used for savings or investment or consumer discretionary income for that matter? It doesn’t make any difference; the government gets that chunk of your income anyway.

                  And I still say the worst part of income taxes, payroll taxes, etc. is that it artificially makes hiring unemployed people more expensive. It can cost more than $50,000 to pay someone $35,000 in take home pay–and that’s unconscionable when unemployment is hovering over 9%.

                  Instead of actively discouraging businesses from hiring unemployed people, we should have a sales tax on pollution–basically. Nobody needs to believe in AGW to understand that.

            3. I can’t imagine how anything other than coercion would be involved.

              Carbon emissions in the US have peak in the past few years and are headed downward.

              So the problem already solved itself simply because oil and coal cost money so the market adjusted because poeple have the incentive to spend less on things that cost them money.

              1. “Carbon emissions in the US have peak in the past few years and are headed downward.

                So the problem already solved itself…”

                From an environmentalism standpoint, if the prevailing model holds, simply incrementally reducing carbon emissions isn’t anywhere near sufficient to bring things back into balance quickly enough.

                That’s one of my problems–as an AGW believer–with the carbon tax regimes, regulation, international agreements, etc. that I see proposed from the left. Despite the devastating damage their proposals would do to the economy, they still don’t do enough to curb carbon emissions to avoid the most likely scenario…

                My proposal does! My proposal is more radical, and will do more than theirs to slash carbon emissions–enough to solve the problem! …and it will see carbon emissions curbed in the most voluntary way possible–and it will stimulate the growth we need in the economy. …which is absolutely necessary to offset the costs of the economic transition away from carbon intensive products.

                But then it’s a libertarian solution–what did you expect?

                The left’s proposals, on the other hand, are like the drug war–ridiculously expensive and they don’t do much to solve the problem they’re trying to fix.

                1. reducing carbon emissions isn’t anywhere near sufficient to bring things back into balance quickly enough.

                  Balance? You’re arguing a level of specificity for which I don’t think anyone is capable of providing evidence.

                  What should the temperature be?

                  1. “What should the temperature be?”

                    I have no idea, but that isn’t a very good argument against trying to fix a problem.

                    You fix it until fixing the problem isn’t worth the cost–from the standpoint of the people who are paying to fix the problem.

                    How much crime should we suffer? I think one rape or armed robbery is one too many–but there is a limit in terms of how much society is willing to pay to prevent crime.

                    Just because there’s a limit to how much we want to pay–and that level is hard to quantify exactly…

                    Just because a certain amount of crime is inevitable–that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about crime.

                    I see the temperature like crime that way. Just because the level we’ll tolerate is hard to quantify exactly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about it.

                    1. “What should the temperature be?”

                      I have no idea, but that isn’t a very good argument against trying to fix a problem.

                      It is, however, an excellent argument challenging the very existence of a problem.

  16. “On average, the team finds, creatures move both up mountains and farther away from the equator at a speed that keeps pace with the rate of climate change and at a pace that is far faster than previously predicted. …”

    Coincidentally, at a pace even faster than these creatures moving to higher elevations, I’ve noticed climate change deniers moving further and further out on their limb.

    1. Some of my best work goes completely unappreciated around here…

      I give you people gold!

  17. Libertarian Cult-Members Threaten To Boycott, Unsubscribe To ReasonTV

    Tens of jilted Ron Paul supporters have threatened to not watch ReasonTV, the libertarian magazine’s video channel, until Reason agrees to fire obscure editor, reporter and sometime cable-news talking head Katherine Mangu-Ward. The Reason Foundation, sugar daddy to ReasonTV, Reason Magazine and Reason.com, is reportedly taking the threatened boycott very seriously, as a prolonged view-stoppage could cost it literally ones of dollars in lost revenues.

    Said spurned Paul supporter kenman1863, “I’ll be Unsubscribing to tReason TV! Ron Paul is going to be our next President. He is already a leader to many who wish? to regain a Constitutional America. Katherine Mangu -Ward another media liar!!”

    missjulievu added, “lmao your an idiot you just lost possibly more than half your subscribers FAIL. RON? PAUL FTW!”

    Nothing else happened.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV

    1. “I’ll be Unsubscribing to Reason TV!”

      Drink!

    2. I laughed

    3. Libertarian Cult-Members Threaten To Boycott, Unsubscribe To ReasonTV

      I only watch episodes starring “The Jacket”! He’s dreamy!

    4. Excellent work.

    5. “Tens of jilted Ron Paul supporters have threatened to not watch ReasonTV, the libertarian magazine’s video channel, until Reason agrees to fire obscure editor, reporter and sometime cable-news talking head Katherine Mangu-Ward.”

      Will it make them feel better if Reason makes KM-W write lines as punishment for such anti-Paul heresy?

      1. Never forget!

  18. TL/DR?

    Scientists ran studies in a geographic area not representative of the entire planet. Scientists reach conclusions pertaining to the small areas. Scientists state those conclusions apply to entire planet.

  19. Have we won in Antarctica yet?

    1. All a matter of degrees…

      1. With the proper degree one can win anything without even asking Congress for permission.

    2. You know, while we’ve got such a huge military advantage over the rest of the world, maybe now would be a good time to repudiate the ATS and claim Antarctica.

      1. If nothing else, we can finally find MacReady and Childs and settle the argument once and for all.

  20. Just curious, but isn’t it a bit myopic to discuss temperature shifts in terms of decades on a 4 billion year old planet? Or did I miss something?

    1. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

    2. People live on decade time scales. So, yes, it is important. If temperatures are going to shift in ways that will affect human populations over the next 50 years, or whatever, then that is a very relevant thing for humans to discuss (regardless of why it happens).

      1. People live on decade time scales

        You are too generous. People live on weekly time scales.
        Anyone here remember Kelly Thomas?

        1. Actually yes.

      2. I disagree. All you are doing is opening the door for massive government intrusion into what would otherwise be a natural process.

        1. While I share your worries about massive government intrusion, I find that kind of an odd argument. Natural processes can fuck people over just as well as human caused ones.

          1. I will concede that knowing the seas are going to rise would be an important factor when considering whether to build our libertarian utopia on an island or on a floating seastead.

  21. “It just HAS to be true! It HAS to! I read some study that I don’t really understand, and I accept the premises unquestioningly since it supports what I so desperately want to be true!” -Ron

    Yes, Ron. Just as the only factor which determines climate is Man and his unnatural life-choking CO2, climate is the only factor in species dispersion.

  22. Oh noes, a few more centuries and every animal species on earth will be living up at the North Pole and on top of Mt. Everest!

    1. The models prove it!

      1. Fucking diminishing returns, how do they work?

      2. The models prove it!

        Adriana Lima FTW!

  23. There had actually been a bit of cooling between the 1940s and 1970s

    People did not come into existence until the late 70’s…that is why there was cooling then and not global warming.

    1. That is the kind of common sense objection that people like Bailey try to dismiss by saying “believe the science not your lying eyes”. AGW science is a bit like quantum physics in that regard except that quantum mechanics made amazingly accurate and testable predictions. AGW has not, will not, and cannot predict a God Damn thing successfully. But we are supposed to ignore common sense anyway.

      No thank you.

      1. Observer-based climatology?

        1. Observer-based climatology?

          Until we open the box the cat will be in a state of quantum flux simultaneously being wet from rain and being dry.

          1. It explains how, in geological terms, we’ve been simultaneously warming until we die horrifically and sliding into an ice age until we die horrifically.

          2. Also you can know what caused climate in the past and you can know what caused climate change today but you cannot know both at the same time.

            1. In climatological mechanics, causation cannot be determined at the climatological level.

          3. “Until we open the box the cat will be in a state of quantum flux simultaneously being wet from rain and being dry.”

            Schrodinger’s climate change?

    2. No, no, no. The effects of industrialization didn’t actually start to occur prior to the ’80’s, before the ’80’s industrialization caused cooling.

    3. And back then, people didn’t give a sh*t about pollution or CO2 emissions. Therefore we have to crank up those factories again.

      1. Hmmmm…it seems that we switched from cooling to warming right about the time that people stopped casually littering.

        I blame the crying Indian for global warming.

  24. This new study adds to the balance of the evidence that the planet has been warming in recent decades. If, as some skeptics assert, greenhouse gases are not significantly implicated in the recent warming, then they must convincingly supply other mechanisms for producing the increasing temperatures.

    The problem I have, when I can be bothered to think about it at all, is with the people who look at a miniscule temperature increase, and project it into an uninhabitable inferno.

    Seriously-

    FUCK

    OFF.

  25. I have noticed that global warming seems to have started just after Lincoln freed the slaves.

  26. What plans should we be working on, right now, in case the evil green alien horde advances on our planet. I mean, if there is a possible threat, dealing with it before hand is the right thing to do, no?

    1. I like the way you think.

    2. Right. We need to invest the billions now in planning for the alien invasion. In ten years, if we haven’t been invaded, we’ll know that our plans are working, and we can triple the budget.

    3. Allow me to be humorless: Since rational thought indicates this is incredibly unlikely and and rational thought also indicates that AGW is incredibly likely, I fail to see your point.

  27. they must convincingly supply other mechanisms for producing the increasing temperatures.

    Why? We’re not bothering anyone.

  28. What I find most curious is why the global warming lobby thinks that forcing Americans to replace all their lighbulbs will solve a global crisis. I mean the carbon footprint of our 300+ million people pales in comparison with the billions of people in emerging economies like China, India, and other places.

    Methinks a certain former VP figured out a way to get extremely wealthy and renouned by playing hero on this issue.

  29. For example, back in 1974, Time magazine in its article “Another Ice Age?” cited reports that armadillos were retreating toward the south as evidence for global cooling. There had actually been a bit of cooling between the 1940s and 1970s, so it’s no wonder armadillos headed south.

    – —– — —-

    es. If, as some skeptics assert, greenhouse gases are not significantly implicated in the recent warming, then they must convincingly supply other mechanisms for producing the increasing temperatures. As much as I would rather it not be the case, in my judgement, the skeptics have not yet done so.

    Have AGW believers provided an explanation as to why there existed a cool down at a time of heavy industrialization? Pre-Green industrialization? A time including a massive war build up and Europe rebuilding? Cooling trends occurred in the 19th century during the first industrial age as well. The burden of proof is not one sided, as you claim here.

    1. Mid-20th century cooling is now thought to have been a result of reflective aerosols. It’s understood to be a temporary effect and the overall trend for the 20th century has been global warming.

      1. It’s understood to be a temporary effect

        Absolutely. It must be temporary, because global aerosol emissions haven’t dropped all that much, but the effect seems to have magically disappeared. That the effect is temporary is the only possible explanation.

        1. Hey! I need more data!

  30. Here is what I think: It doesn’t matter at all if climate change/global warming/whatever you want to call it is caused by human CO2 emissions or by magic unicorn farts. People are not going to stop emitting CO2 and the climate is going to do whatever it is going to do. Way too much effort is wasted on arguing about this.
    The fact is that climate does change, as it always has and always will, sometimes in ways that can seriously disrupt human life and civilization. If there is a problem to be solved, it is what to do when such changes inevitably occur, not who is to blame or what the exact causes are. Both sides in this debate waste a lot of time and effort on pointless crap.

    1. Of course. We should try to know and understand what’s happening with the climate all of the time, of course, but we’re not going to solve anything like AGW, if it truly exists at any significant level, by a few countries trying (and likely failing) to cut emissions while everyone else decides they want to live more than they want to keep the Earth cooler.

      Really, the best solution is, as usual, technology. Get better, cleaner, etc., and the issue will be slowly solved. Heck, Mr. Fusion alone could do it.

    2. It doesn’t matter if murder is caused by a person shooting you in the head. Let bygones by bygones.

      We are already in the middle of the problem. Tens of thousands of deaths in Somalia are due to drought caused by global warming. It’s important to know who to blame so we know who to ask to pay for the damage. Since we all use fossil fuels, we’re all pretty much to blame.

      But if you want to advocate for unchecked abuse of human beings because “it’s just one of those things,” then I presume you don’t expect anyone to respect your property rights.

      1. “Tens of thousands of deaths in Somalia are due to drought caused by global warming.”

        You are utterly confused. Political causes are behind every single death from hunger on this planet. There is more than enough food produced to feed everyone and then some.

      2. The drought in Somalia is not caused by AGW.

        That is the thing about Climate change, the climate actually has to change to be called climate change. Somalia has had periodic droughts for the past 10,000 years…if Somalia stopped having droughts then you can say AGW caused it.

        By the way global trade and the use of oil and coal that fuel it protects people from things like drought. In fact without oil and coal there would be millions of death world wide caused from things like drought every year.

        The best thing to do for places like Somalia is to get their economy going and get them into the global trade market and get them using oil and gas and coal to they can weather changes in the weather.

      3. You miss the point entirely, Tony (if that’s who you really are). You can’t talk about culpability for something like global warming in the same way as murder. The proposed causes of global warming also improve life for billions of people and save countless lives. You can’t just say that X peopel died because of changing weather patterns and leave it at that. There is a large positive side to CO2 emissions too. And even if the negatives outweigh the positives (which is far from clear), changing our lightbulbs and imposing cap and trade on the richer countries is not going to make the difference. If there is any collective action to be taken it needs to be to figure out how to deal with climate change, not to have a pissing contest about who is to blame.

      4. Tens of thousands of deaths in Somalia are due to drought caused by global warming.

        Too strong a statement. Global warming may make East African droughts more likely, or more severe, but droughts have happened there throughout human history, and we don’t know enough about the climate to say “Yes, climate change caused this particular drought.”

        Climate change is terrifying enough without overstating it.

    3. Which is to say, in fact, that the people most negatively affected will be those least responsible: poor people who burn fewer fossil fuels.

      You can say we should just let pure Darwinian unfairness rule, but then you don’t get to claim any moral high ground.

      1. But poor people burn or cut down forests and burn wood in open fires, which is a very inefficient use of resources. It’s not as black and white as you want to make it out to be.

      2. ” then you don’t get to claim any moral high ground.”

        So THAT’s what you are actually concerned about. It all makes sense now.

      3. Which is to say, in fact, that the people most negatively affected

        By what? Oh, catastrophic man-caused climate change! Of course!

        See, also, Assuming the Conclusion.

  31. So what. What is the big deal with climate change? So some frogs move up to the mountains. So France and Napa are not longer prime wine country. So some beach properties get eroded.

    Big deal.

  32. There had actually been a bit of cooling between the 1940s and 1970s

    In spite of increasing CO2 output. Weird. Its almost like there are other variables at work.

    1. Benevolent, green aliens striving to cool our ever-warming planet?

      1. Maybe the alien kid with the magnifying glass got distracted for a few decades when he thought he heard his mom calling.

        1. Have the climate scientists claimed that there are not other variables that come into play or are you merely obfuscating?

  33. “If, as some skeptics assert, greenhouse gases are not significantly implicated in the recent warming, then they must convincingly supply other mechanisms for producing the increasing temperatures”

    No they don’t.

    The only people ever required to prove anything are those claiming the affirmative condition.

    Those claiming AGW must prove it to be so and they must do it with unequivocal and absolute definitiveness – or they’ve proven absolutely nothing.

  34. Yeah, last year a jaguar was caught and trapped in S. Arizona. It died shortly afterwards unfortunately. It was pretty old and sick, which is probably why it wandered north of the border. Normally Jaguars live in Central America and S. Mexico. Jungle creatures, you know. Wandering so far north, it was seriusly dehydrated. Jaguars aren’t meant to live in the desert.

    Still, Arizona has mountain lions, and a variety of other large cat species.

    Personally I could help but think “Jaguars? Awesome!”

    Of course, afterwards an bunch of idiot environmentalists complained that the forest service had killed off “the last Jaguar in Arizona” and started screaming about endangered species and such. As if in the pristine wild before evil humans moved in there were enormous prides of jaguars inhabiting the desert.

    Strangely, the idea that the jaguar was an “invasive species” caused by Global Warming does not seem to have occured to them.

    Probably because cats are easier to identify with then the evil bufflegrass.

    1. Actually Jaguars were originally native to southern Arizona. They were extirpated over the last century, though very rarely one is still sighted.

  35. Ron,

    A theory is falsified if its predictions do not pan out (high climate sensitivity to CO2 for instance). No alternative need be provided.

    You believe in computer models? The best ones used in electronics are around 1% accurate. Average models are in the 5% range.

    The be able to predict in the 1 deg C range the models have to be accurate to .3%. With lousy gridding. Insufficient data, bad data, and often wrong assumptions. And on top of that the models do not predict the actual heat distribution of the real atmosphere. Or have you failed to notice?

    You can’t possibly be as stupid as you are pretending to be. Can you?

  36. The sun is the cause of the warming. More sunspot activity. Less cosmic rays. Less clouds. Warmer Earth. Google it.

  37. “Either species are now stuck on tops of mountains…” This statement makes me want to laugh till I puke. These scientists have surveyed and mapped large numbers of little critters to a matter of vertical meters, but can’t tell if they have reached the top of the mountain?

  38. ” “We’re prisoners of the data,” he says. But by analyzing 54 papers that met their criteria, the researchers found that, on average, organisms move up hills at 12.2 meters per decade, twice the rate previously described in the literature. And they move away from the equator at 17.6 kilometers per decade, which is three times the rate previously described.”

    I think not. I think the data is his prisoner.

    “Organisms move up hills…” All organisms, or only those on the move north and up?

    Later in the article he admits 22% of all specias are moving south or down. What the hell?

    So why, in this article, does the author never mention what % of species are moving up/north, down/south, or staying put.

    I’m going to hazard an unsubstantiated guess:

    22% moving on up
    22% going downtown.
    56% staying put.

  39. “…Thomas speculates, or those in the Northern Hemisphere might be moving around mountains laterally to the colder north face.”

    Sure, I’d certainly travel 50 miles to get to the other side of the mountain instead of walking 100 meters uphill (net gain of 12 meters vertical). I’m sure those animals are migrating to the north side because they know their altitude and are committed to staying there.

    I mean, why speculate if your speculation is dumber than saying “i don’t know”?

  40. this is a really interesting topic. and helpful too. now i have something to report on.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.