New Scientist, September 3, 2008
[URL]http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646?DCMP=ILC-arttsrhcol&nsref=specrt10_head_Warmer[/URL] or not?

The "hockey stick" graph (average northern hemisphere temperature over the past 1000 years) has been updated.

Result: improved data for this reconstruction [U]leads to the same conclusion[/U] as the earlier graph. Furthermore, various criticisms of the original graph are refuted.

Don't be confused by the title ("Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong"). It's saying that "proven wrong" is a [B]myth[/B].

The "hockey stick" has [B]not[/B] been proven wrong; it has been confirmed by new data.

Perhaps instead of trying to reduce CO[sub]2[/sub] we should be trying to increase it. In a ½ billion or so years we will be wishing for more:[quote=http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/death_of_earth_000224.html]As Earth becomes a global desert, carbon dioxide levels are expected to drop. At a certain level, which he and his colleagues say might be achieved in half a billion years, there would not be enough carbon dioxide to support photosynthesis, and most plants would die.[/quote]

[QUOTE=retina;144112]Perhaps instead of trying to reduce CO[sub]2[/sub] we should be trying to increase it. In a ½ billion or so years we will be wishing for more:[/QUOTE]A selective quote, unfortunately.

The Sun is getting hotter, so increased CO_2 will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect.

If catastrophe is to be averted, another effect will be required. Possibilities include increased albedo or increased orbital radius. Note that albedo increase alone doesn't work if it's done the same way as for Venus. That planet's albedo is so high that less solar radiation goes to the surface and lower atmosphere than is the case for the Earth, despite Venus having a markedly smaller orbital radius.


Paul

That site also has a [url=http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/earth_move_010207.html]Recipe for Saving Earth: Move It[/url]

In addition to limiting global-warming COO emissions, we could reduce global-warming methane emissions by eating more 'ROO:

"Eating kangaroos could help fight global warming: scientist"

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/australiaclimatefoodkangaroosoffbeat[/URL]

[quote]An offbeat suggestion that Australians should eat kangaroos instead of cattle and sheep has been given a scientific stamp of approval by the government's top climate change adviser.

The belching and farting of millions of farm animals is a major contributor to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, Professor Ross Garnaut noted in a major report to the government on global warming.

Kangaroos, on the other hand, emit negligible amounts of methane gas.

If farmers were included in a system requiring industry to buy permits for the gas they produce, the cost of meat would rise and could lead to a change in eating habits, Garnaut said in the 600 page report released Wednesday.

"For most of Australia's human history -- around 60,000 years -- kangaroo was the main source of meat," he said.

. . .

... kangaroo meat would become more profitable than cattle and sheep as the price of emissions permits increased.

. . .

Despite being the national animal and appearing on the Australian coat of arms, millions of kangaroos are slaughtered in the wild each year to control their numbers and much of the meat is used for pet food.

The idea of farming them for human consumption is controversial, but many health-conscious Australians already eat kangaroo meat.

"It's low in fat, it's got high protein levels, it's very clean in the sense that basically it's the ultimate free range animal," says Peter Ampt of the University of New South Wales's institute of environmental studies.[/quote]I've eaten kangaroo-tail soup; it was tasty. You might find it in the exotic-foods section of upscale U.S. groceries.

More evidence that global warming will harm
 

Some people claim that since there have been climate changes in the past, climate change in the future is not so threatening as to deserve remedial action. There seems to be a lack of awareness that today's situation differs greatly from the past, in terms of survival of species.

In the distant past, there were no manmade obstacles to species which migrated to more northerly (or southerly) climes as average temperatures varied. Note here that by migration, I do not mean mere animal mobility such as with birds or caribou. Plants can migrate, too.

Suppose a plant species lives in an area between 35 and 40 degrees latitude, because that's where the average temperatures are favorable to it. If climate warms, the plants closest to the equator at 35 degrees latitude will tend to reproduce less effectively; they will have fewer successful offspring. The plants at 40 degrees latitude, however, will have greater success, partly because their broadcast offspring at latitude 40.1, then 40.2, and so on will survive better from year to year. The _area in which the plant lives_ will migrate from the original range of latitude 35-40 to latitudes 35.1-40.1, 35.2-40.2, and so on. After a while, their living area might be latitudes 40-45 degrees, where formerly none of their species survived at all in the colder climate at the earlier time.

Such migration would also apply to small, slowly-moving animals, as their future generations were able to live more and more away from the equator. Even if this happened at a speed of only 100 feet in a year, that's almost a mile in 50 years, 100 miles in 5,000 years.

In many cases, such migrations would be stopped by natural barriers such as ocean shore. Those species whose migration of living area could not continue at other longitudes unblocked by ocean shore would be at higher risk of extinction.

What plant and animal species confront in today's world, though, is any, many more barriers to migration posed by manmade changes such as urban areas, clear-cut forest, highways, tilled soil, and so forth. An animal at the away-from-equator edge of his current habitat may face wide areas hostile to him that effectively prevent further migration in that direction. Similarly, seeds broadcast from a plant in the direction away from the equator may land upon pavement or on land regularly tilled and herbicided. These barriers place much more stringent limits on how much climate change those species can tolerate without extinction.

Here's an article about a comparison of mammal ranges in Yosemite Park. "Pioneering ecologist" Joseph Grinnell surveyed the animals in Yosemite National Park almost a century ago. Now, a recent repetition of that survey finds that species have moved their living ranges. ([I]But note that national parks contain many fewer manmade barries to migration than lands outside such protected areas.[/I])

"New Homes on the Range: Species Shift Across Yosemite"

[URL]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=species-shift-across-yellowstone[/URL]

[quote]Pioneering ecologist Joseph Grinnell in 1914 began a seven year survey of the animals living in Yosemite National Park in California. ...

Nearly a century later, one cause for the transformation of California wildlife has come to overshadow all others: global warming. Now scientists have found that a rise of 6.7 degrees Fahrenheit (3.7 degrees Celsius) in average nighttime low temperatures (since 1920 when Grinnell concluded his research) is causing mammals in Yosemite to get a move on.

Evolutionary biologist Craig Moritz, director of the Museum of Vertegrate Zoology (founded by Grinnell) at the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues traced Grinnell's footsteps across the mountainous Yosemite terrain. ... They found that 16 of the 28 species documented by Grinnell in Yosemite had moved as far as 3,280 feet (1,000 meters) up the slopes in search of suitable climes—and that at least three, including the alpine chipmunk unique to California, had edged closer to extinction.

. . .

Though climate change is the most likely suspect, researchers fell short of proving it is behind all these habitat shifts given some puzzling findings. For instance, "pika are strongly affected by high temperatures but the average high temperatures haven't changed," Moritz notes. Nevertheless, the pika's range has been diminished. "We can't connect the pika physiology to the observed change yet."

These modern-day researchers hope that future scientists will find their work as helpful as they found the 4,000 specimens, 3,000 pages of field notes and 700 photos left behind by Grinnell. But it is already clear that turning the Yosemite area into a protected National Park in 1890 has permitted species to adapt to this rapid shift in climate by moving through relatively undisturbed habitats. "What we've looked at so far is a best-case scenario because we're looking at a protected landscape," Moritz says. "Community reorganization is a natural phenomenon but perhaps not at this pace. Can these species adjust to co-occur or not? I don't know. It's a grand experiment that I sort of wish wasn't happening."[/quote]

Here's a study of tropical plant and insect migration:

"Sultry to Scorching: Rising Temps May Be Too Hot for Tropical Species"

[URL]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rising-temperatures-too-hot-for-tropical-plants-and-insects[/URL]

... and another:

"Climbing Trees: Plants Move Uphill as World Warms"

[URL]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climbing-trees-plants-move-uphill-as-climate-changes[/URL]

... and another:

"Hot Potato: Global Warming Threatens Spuds and Peanuts"

[URL]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hot-potato-global-warming-threatens-spuds-and-peanuts[/URL]

Some folks are trying to save species by artificially migrating them across oceans. There are many difficulties (does "invasive species" ring a bell?) and it is clearly impractical for all but a small number of species:

"Deporting Plants and Animals to Protect Them from Climate Change"

[URL]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=deporting-plants-and-animals-to-protect-from-climate-change[/URL]

Another technical 'trap' to be considered.
 

With the recent 'housing crisis', I came up with a suggestion I casually share:
For every U.S. home possessed by the government , a requirement be instated before such home may be sold back to the public (where feasable, physically) ; let every such home be equiped with solar panels sufficient only to cover the 'lighting' 24 hrs a day. This a technique to drive up recovery prices, as allowing a purchaser to sit and and read a book,and move around, 24/7 for free,electrically speaking. At say 10 million homes, also 10 million mini reductions on the electrical grid of the country.

The technical question, would this reduce or increase global warming?
Believe me there is more to this than a simple answer!

I don't have it, but am introducing it here as a worthy debate.

Normally energy trapped into the earth will increase warming, it is more a question of wisely trapped or wastefully OVER heating during daylight hours,
and the miniscule multiplied effect of the above project.

Michael Crichton, global-warming denier, 1942-2008
 

Michael Crichton ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton[/URL]), author, film and television producer, film director, medical doctor, ... and global-warming denier ... died early this morning.

Four years ago, the RealClimate.org ("Climate science from climate scientists", [URL]http://www.realclimate.org/[/URL]) published a column ("Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion", [URL]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74[/URL]) critiquing the scientific aspects of Crichton's novel [I]State of Fear[/I], which the column characterizes as "about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists." The column discusses some of the book's examples of selective data use and out-of-context testimony to support its plot's conclusion that global warming is not a real problem.

A couple of months later, Chris Mooney, author of [I]The Republican War on Science[/I], similarly wrote a column ("Checking Crichton's footnotes", [URL]http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/[/URL]) that described [I]State of Fear[/I]'s misleading and distorted references to real climate science statements in the book's footnotes, which were intended to lend credibility to the novel's thesis.

Though Crichton was ill, his death early today was unexpected. That it occurred the day after the United States elected a new president who will reverse this nation's 8-year course of global-warming denial and general subordination of science to ideology was a coincidence.

Shit.

At least ER is in it's last season. The return of Dr. Green has shark-jump (qv) written all over it.

jrk,

To what do you refer? (Or was that intended for a different thread?)

Uncwilly,

Since I don't watch [i]ER[/i], same question to you.

:-)