Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

reply to post by network dude

There amazing scientists have the entire climate of a planet figured out within a 5% margin of error yet nobody can find a way to separate hydrogen from oxygen cheaply?

Because the laws of physics say that it requires a given amount of energy to do so and, so far, coal and oil are the cheapest way to provide that energy.

Splitting water doesn't create energy. It's more like an energy storage system.

Phage
reply to post by network dude

 

There amazing scientists have the entire climate of a planet figured out within a 5% margin of error yet nobody can find a way to separate hydrogen from oxygen cheaply?

Because the laws of physics say that it requires a given amount of energy to do so and, so far, coal and oil are the cheapest way to provide that energy.

Splitting water doesn't create energy. It's more like an energy storage system.

edit on 4/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes, Phage is correct.

And the figuring out the ratio of various gases and particulates in our atmosphere is not beyond the reaches of science.

reply to post by network dude

There amazing scientists have the entire climate of a planet figured out within a 5% margin of error yet nobody can find a way to separate hydrogen from oxygen cheaply?

Not cheaply, but give it time. The availability is at least beginning.
www.scientificamerican.com...
www.wired.com...
www.popsci.com...

reply to post by network dude


You said "...But we all know that real science doesn't work like that. You have to go into the data with NO preconceived notions. You have to objectively look at all the data and remember that you might not be right...."

But with this man made global warming issue...real scientists are doing just what you said...They are going into the data with no preconceived notions and objectively looking at all the data and remembering that they might not be right...

Again it's like evolution...sure there are a few questions and all of that but...it's the same thing. If you are going to throw out all the climate science, why not throw out all other science. How can you cherry pick what science you are choosing to believe? Oh I'll believe in Gravity but not Climate?

beezzer

Phage
reply to post by beezzer

 

If we want to take an honest look at climate, then we have to look at the entire picture. Climate protagonists are so narrowly focused, that even using science to refute their claims is met with derision.

If that's what you think, you haven't actually paid much attention to the science. Studying the history of Earth's climate is integral to studying and understanding the current climate.

Do you think that just because climate changed a great deal in the past, it means that the current warming trend is not being caused by human activity? Do you think that the causes of climate change in the past are not considered? Do you think that evidence of those causes has not been looked for? If so, you really haven't paid any attention to the science.

Bull poop.

Climate change in the past is routinely ignored so that an agenda can be pushed.

Cyclic change does nothing to bring home the money.

Man doing naughty certainly does.

edit on 1-4-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

To be far, you got owned.

I think the real perspective is that alternative energy takes away the bacon for the fat cats who currently rule the world.

Your position is the position that preserves the current power structure of the petrodollar. You are in fact protecting the overlords and their bacon, free of charge I might add. Then you slyly turn around and point your finger to accuse others of what you are so clearly engaging in. Just pointing that out

Fortunately science will overcome and these dirty technologies will be reserved for emergency power, not everyday use.

When that day happens I hope you are alive to suffer your internal conflict, are you glad you no longer have to pay $5 a gallon? or are you sad that your big oil buddies will have to retire with only $311 billion in the bank???

amazing
reply to post by network dude

 

You said "...But we all know that real science doesn't work like that. You have to go into the data with NO preconceived notions. You have to objectively look at all the data and remember that you might not be right...."

But with this man made global warming issue...real scientists are doing just what you said...They are going into the data with no preconceived notions and objectively looking at all the data and remembering that they might not be right...

Again it's like evolution...sure there are a few questions and all of that but...it's the same thing. If you are going to throw out all the climate science, why not throw out all other science. How can you cherry pick what science you are choosing to believe? Oh I'll believe in Gravity but not Climate?

It's hard to except something that has economic implications, especially if you are a fan of wealth and profiteering.

reply to post by beezzer

oooh, lookie!

Science!

www.ces.fau.edu...

be back later, have to do some "science".

*eye rolls*

From your article pages 4 and 5:

Burning of Fossil Fuels and Forests
Drilling for Oil
Drilling for Oil - Image Source: Microsoft Clip Art
Carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere by human activities. When hydrocarbon fuels (i.e. wood, coal, natural gas, gasoline, and oil) are burned, carbon dioxide is released. During combustion or burning, carbon from fossil fuels combine with oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide and water vapor.

These natural hydrocarbon fuels come from once-living organisms and are made from carbon and hydrogen, which release carbon dioxide and water when they burn.



The burning of fossil fuels is occurring at a much higher rate than that of their production.

Not only does the burning of forests release carbon dioxide, but deforestation can also affects the level of carbon dioxide. Trees reduce the amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis, so fewer trees means more carbon dioxide left in the atmosphere.

Below is an animation of Landsat satellite images showing changes in the topography due to deforestation in the Amazonian forest in Rondônia, Brazil. Image Source: NASA

Deforestation
Watch Episode 3: Global Warming, It's All About Carbon.
NPR's Robert Krulwich and Odd Todd, in partnership with Wild Chronicles, present an animated cartoon series on the atom at the heart of global warming: carbon. In episode 3: If you break a carbon bond -- presto! -- civilization.

While there are other sources for CO2 emissions, to think ours is insignificant, or as so many put it, has zero effect is just disingenuous.
Methane is another source, which comes from many things natural but also comes from our landfills:

Methane (CH4) is also composed of one atom of carbon surrounded by four atoms of hydrogen. It is the principal component of natural gas and the second most important greenhouse gas of concern. You learned that a methane molecule is 30 times stronger than a molecule of carbon dioxide, but methane is present in smaller concentrations and has a shorter lifetime than carbon dioxide. Methane is the main component of natural gas. Methane enters the atmosphere and eventually combines with oxygen (oxidizes) to form more CO2. Methane converts to CO2 by this simple chemical reaction.

Landfill
Image Source:
Microsoft Clip Art
Landfills, rice farming and cattle farming release another minor greenhouse gas, called methane into Earth’s atmosphere. Methane is emitted during the decomposition of organic wastes and the raising of livestock. Methane is produced when bacteria decompose organic plant and animal matter in such places at wetlands (e.g., marshes, mudflats, flooded rice fields), sewage treatment plants, landfills, the guts of cattle and termites, and leakage from natural gas pipelines and from oil wells.

CH4 + O2 → CO2 + H4
methane + oxygen → carbon dioxide + hydrogen

Again, other sources contribute but to say we have no affect is just not true, and to imply so sounds like a thumbs up for business as usual.

Well, I have to agree with network dude and beezzer, I think there's science to suggest our climate is just acting up and will always just be who Mother Nature Wants Our Climate To Be for any particular century or millennium.

Here lets with on open mind,,,,,,, read this a portion of this report.

Global climate models are unable to make
accurate projections of climate even 10 years
ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has
been adopted by policy planners. The output
of such models should therefore not be used
to guide public policy formulation.
• Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the
reported late twentieth century surface
warming (1979–2000) lay outside the range
of normal natural variability, nor were they in
any way unusual compared to earlier
episodes in Earth’s climatic history.
• Solar forcing of temperature change is likely
more important than is currently recognized.
• No unambiguous evidence exists of
dangerous interference in the global climate
caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In
particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an
enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not
accelerating; and no systematic changes
have been documented in evaporation or
rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of
extreme meteorological events.
• Any human global climate signal is so small
as to be nearly indiscernible against the
background variability of the natural climate
system. Climate change is always occurring.
• A phase of temperature stasis or cooling
has succeeded the mild warming of the
twentieth century. Similar periods of warming
and cooling due to natural variability are
certain to occur in the future irrespective of
human emissions of greenhouse gases.
• Source: Idso, C.D., Carter, R.M., and Singer,
S.F. (Eds.) 2013. Climate Change
Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Chicago,
IL: The Heartland Institute

Whether the subject is the likely effects of
warming on crops, trees, weeds, birds, butterflies, or
polar bears, it seems IPCC invariably picks the
studies and models that paint global warming in the
darkest possible hues. IPCC sees “death, injury, and
disrupted livelihoods”—to borrow a phrase from
Working Group II—everywhere it looks.
Oftentimes, IPCC’s pessimistic forecasts fly in
the face of scientific observations. The global
ecosystem is not suffering from the rising
temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels IPCC has
called “unprecedented,” despite all the models and
hypotheses IPCC’s authors marshal to make that case.
Real-world data show conclusively that most plants
flourish when exposed to higher temperatures and
higher levels of CO2 and that the planet’s terrestrial
biosphere is undergoing a great post-Industrial
Revolution greening that is causing deserts to retreat
and forests to expand, enlarging habitat for wildlife.
Essentially the same story can be told of global
warming’s impact on terrestrial animals, aquatic life,
and human health.

Link
You can read a scaled down version here:
IPCC 's latest report
And again we can read from the NYP here:

Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.
And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.

The NY Post
So just possibly we don't need this whole attitude of:

Because, Please Remember Those Scientist That Went looking For That Supposedly, Open Body Of Water,,,,,,

reply to post by guohua

But outside of IPCC, what about all the other groups?

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

The panel in your article seems minimally qualified compared to the 97% Consensus teams too,imo. Plus, none of them say definitively that humans do not contribute to climate change.

reply to post by Phage

You are probably still a proponent of the Mann made hockey stick graph eh . Well seeing he hasn't had to release his data and codes as yet I think that Steyn's court case will get the data out in the public unless someone wants to pick up a 15 million dollar tab that is .

network dude

WhiteAlice


The preceding Ice Ages were not the result of man but were more likely due to slight changes in the earth's obliquity, wobble, and eccentricity in its path around the Sun along with instances where land masses developed in areas where the old conveyor belt existed (shutdown).

Don't take offence to this, it's not directed at you directly, but,

This all happened a long time ago. We have had hundreds of years to study and understand it. It's directly related to the warming problem we have today, yet, when asked the direct question, as was asked of you, your answer contained words like "more likely".

Is it just me, or do you see why it's possible that 90-95% of scientists might be wrong. Not are wrong, but might be.

Of course they did. I am and will always be a statistics nerd mashed with scientist. When it comes to the earth's climate, there are so many variables that come into play--several of which have been mentioned in this thread and some that have not (ie solar activity which could very well be yet another reason for the cooling trend over the continents--see the Maunder Minimum) . Oceanic currents, atmospheric gases, land masses, vegetation, architecture, waterways, mountains, solar activity and, heck, the aforementioned obliquity, eccentricity and wobblyness of the earth. All that packs in to not only influence microclimates but also the macroclimate overall. it's a scenario with multiple interrelated variables. However, we do have enough data to know that the general behavior of the earth in its passage through the solar system in relation to the sun or the interruption of prior oceanic conveyor belts were most likely the precipitating events of previous ice ages.

Contrary to what you might think, science is not fixed. How science works is one poses a hypothesis and then must accumulate data in an objective manner which proves that the hypothesis may be valid. Then the work is subject to peer review where other scientists also test the hypothesis for its validity through testing other potential variables and repeated observations of the same outcome. Only when you have a statistically significant number of scientists agreeing that yes, an hypothesis appears to be valid after thousands of tests and comparative data, then you get what's called a theory. Theories, however, can be disproved through the previous scenario again that proves that the theory is incorrect. That's how science works and it is the most objective and logical way to assess the world that we live in.

Things must be statistically significant to have any scientific validity. You question whether or not that 90-95% of scientists could all be wrong. It's always possible that there is some alternate unknown mechanism or variable at work but it's also very unlikely. Put into the terms of statistical significance, that 90-95% of scientists would be that they are most likely correct. They'd be a 90 to 95% confidence interval (CI) which is really pretty darn good (or bad considering what they agree on).

To put the significance of that 90-95% into play, what's the human body's normal temperature?

Most people would say 98.6. However, the temperature of 98.6 doesn't even have a 95% confidence level. How I would answer that question would be "probably around 98.6" because of my being a stats nerd. Technically, the human body temperature is very likely, at 99th confidence interval (highest you can get--there is NEVER 100% confidence), to fall within the range of 98.0 and 98.4.

Basically, you're picking out words that a stats nerd IS going to use and part of that is science, too. For future reference, when I say any one of these words, this is what I mean:

Probably--not saying it is but it's possible (80% CI)
Likely--you could be correct (85% CI)
Most likely--it's looking pretty correct. (90% CI)
Very likely--It's looking really very correct. (95% CI)
You nailed it--I pretty damn sure you're correct but there's always room for error (99% CI).

Welcome to the mind of a stats nerd. In science, you actually need a pretty high CI to prove your case. Most likely or better and your hypothesis is going to be publicly flogged and put to the test via the peer review process. Not blog posts.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist

Yes, I Stared you.
Looking at the names on the list,,, I don't have much faith in their True Goal.
Is their final decision based on the amount of ready available Tax payer funds from the Federal Government, when they know, that is the out come this Administration wants to hear.

It's not popular to go against the flow or grain or the most popular train of thought.
It's also much easier to have your findings accepted without very much scrutiny if your showing them what they want to see or hear.
I guess I'm just not to trusting of our Government after working for one of their agency for over 38 years.
Call Me Crazy!!

reply to post by guohua

It's also much easier to have your findings accepted without very much scrutiny if your showing them what they want to see or hear.

But peer reviewed sources are a must in science and truth, and that is what these organizations have done. Now I do appreciate independent studies as well, but they gotta bring forth some evidence and not rehash blog literature.
It does seem crazy, and I too want truth, but I can't find any significant evidence that is beyond these groups. At least none that says humans have zero affect on climate.
right back at ya, always!

reply to post by the2ofusr1


PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
937 AM CDT TUE APR 1 2014 /1037 AM EDT TUE APR 1 2014/

...COLDEST FOUR MONTH PERIOD ON RECORD IN CHICAGO...

CHICAGO:

THE IMPRESSIVE COLD THIS PAST WINTER CONTINUED DURING
MARCH...WITH A MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF ONLY 31.7 DEGREES
FOR THE MONTH. THIS RANKS AS THE 19TH COLDEST MARCH ON RECORD IN
CHICAGO. HOWEVER...OF EVEN MORE INTEREST IS THE FACT THAT WITH THE
ABNORMALLY COLD MARCH ACROSS THE AREA...THIS MADE THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE FOR THE DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH PERIOD IN CHICAGO 22.0
DEGREES...WHICH IS THE COLDEST SUCH PERIOD ON RECORD FOR CHICAGO
DATING BACK TO 1872!

HERE IS A LIST OF THIS YEARS DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE RELATED TO THE OTHER COLDEST SUCH PERIODS ON RECORD
IN CHICAGO:

RANK AVERAGE YEAR
DEC-MAR TEMP
-----------------------------
1. 22.0 2013-14
2. 22.3 1903-04
3. 22.5 1977-78
22.5 1892-93
5. 22.7 1978-79


ROCKFORD:

UNSEASONABLY COLD CONDITIONS ALSO OCCURRED IN ROCKFORD IN MARCH.
THE AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE WAS 29.6 DEGREES...WHICH WAS THE
12TH COLDEST MARCH ON RECORD. THE DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE FOR ROCKFORD WAS 18.4 DEGREES. THIS RANKS AS THE 2ND
COLDEST SUCH PERIOD ON RECORD IN ROCKFORD DATING BACK TO 1906.

HERE IS A LIST OF THIS YEARS DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE RELATED TO THE OTHER COLDEST SUCH PERIODS ON RECORD
IN ROCKFORD:

RANK AVERAGE YEAR
DEC-MAR TEMP
-----------------------------
1. 18.2 1977-78
2. 18.4 2013-14
3. 18.5 1978-79
4. 19.1 1911-12
5. 21.0 1981-82


$$

KJB www.crh.noaa.gov...

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


You cherry pick the data that supports your assertions and ignore the rest.

I'm not a climate scientist. My degrees are in another scientific discipline.

I'd wager that none of you are climate scientists either.

So we battle back and forth, portraying our own scientists that support our uneducated beliefs.

I'm skeptical. Just my nature, I suppose. It must be nice to be so sure of things. To be 100% right in everything you all believe in.

For me? I'll wait for more data. I'll use science. Science is not the bible. Putting your faith in a science that has a half-life only sets you up for disappointment later.

beezzer
reply to post by Phage

 

I'm simply pointing out the dynamic nature of. . . well, nature.

Nothing is static. We don't live in a fragile ecosystem where meddlesome man come along and tips over the apple cart.

If we want to take an honest look at climate, then we have to look at the entire picture. Climate protagonists are so narrowly focused, that even using science to refute their claims is met with derision.

Sure, meddlesome man can tip over the apple cart for an ecosystem. They are actually fragile and the systems that developed did so over very long periods of time. An old growth forest takes over 1000 years to develop into the mass of biodiversity that it is. What we do, in short order usually, is mess that kind of thing up. Rapidly.

As I've already stated, I do hold a degree in biology. In one of my courses, limnology, I was required to go out and obtain a water sample from a local creek, river, pond, or lake. I marched right on down to the nearby pond in my neighborhood with a jar and gloves and collected the water. Took it back to the lab and put it under the microscope. Was totally stunned because there wasn't anything in there under the microscope and after several samples, my prof came up and did it herself. That water looked clean as a whistle but neither of us were buying it. Project was put on hold to obtain permission to utilize the more powerful microscope in the school in an oil immersion. Got approved and looked again. E. Coli. The only thing living in my water sample was prolific amounts of E. Coli and my results were sent to the city and the pond was immediately closed off in its entirety from human access.

What does this have to do with people? How on earth could meddlesome people mess up an ecosystem? Well in the case of the pond, the developers of the residential area basically closed off the natural outflow from the pond, capping everything in. Then all those people going down there to feed the ducks came in and caused the population of ducks in the pond to increase dramatically. Too much duck poop, hello E. Coli. We basically screwed up the existing ecosystem for that pond so badly that it had to be closed down until adjustments could be made to clear it of E.Coli and correct the prior errors.

That's just a little pond that didn't get any mention at all on any national level and was basically just a neighborhood concern. It proves the point though. Man in one area can serious mess up an ecosystem. When all those ecosystems are interconnected together to create the greater biosphere, it's SNAFU. The biosphere does not exist in an independent bubble from our activities. It never has and everything that we do on this planet has a cumulative effect.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Then you are familiar with the term; homeostasis?

Balance is usually achieved in any environment where an influence may occur.

Look at old growth forests. They fluctuate all the time! Nothing is static in nature.

As someone with a degree in biology, I would hope you are familiar with this.

reply to post by beezzer

You cherry pick the data that supports your assertions and ignore the rest.

Cherry picked? I just used your article that you seemed to imply supported all natural forces affecting climate and not us.
I just wanted to show that your source provided evidence contrary to your position. I also included in my post that the part I extracted was only part of it, acknowledging the natural forces too,but it is still an important part.

I'd wager that none of you are climate scientists either.

NO I am not a climate scientist, but that sounds like you would give credence to a scientist, yet a group of 18 scientific organizations outside of IPCC is not credible?

It must be nice to be so sure of things. To be 100% right in everything you all believe in.

100% right? I never,I would rather weigh out the facts to make a decision and I see nothing outweighing the 97% consensus. I am in good company too with Tyson, Hawkings and Kaku.

Science is not the bible.

Science is not the bible, but it is what enables us to sit here and discuss things, as well as heat/cool our homes, get from point a to b, create strategic defenses for war..etc. Not a bible but an excellent reference source!
I too grow tired of the bickering and i think it stems from a black and white perspective, not allowing for any gray or middle ground. Conundrums stall the learning process and so in order for resolve, we must find common ground and avoid blanket assessments, which I will admit I have been guilty of, but try to avoid.

beezzer
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Then you are familiar with the term; homeostasis?

Balance is usually achieved in any environment where an influence may occur.

Look at old growth forests. They fluctuate all the time! Nothing is static in nature.

As someone with a degree in biology, I would hope you are familiar with this.

Absolutely. In a natural environment, homeostasis is precisely what keeps things in check in nature. However, we almost always break that homeostasis on a fairly regular basis. it's like when ranchers went out west. Wolf populations surged up a bit because suddenly they had a captive, easy to obtain source of food that they did have previously. Life is a smorgasbord. What did ranchers do to protect their livestock? They nearly wiped out the wolves. What happened next? Well, deer populations began to rise because their predator was gone and oops, that caused some overgrazing issues and was contributing to soil erosion, plus starvation. So what did man do? Turned hunting deer into a sport. Now in some areas where its bad, they've been reintroducing wolves--much to the ranchers' chagrin.

People messing up the homeostasis.

Another good one is "Only you can prevent forest fires". Smokey the Bear and his crew thought all forest fires were bad and quickly put them out. The end result? Major forest fires. The Tillamook Burn is one that I know of the best. Basically, trees can actually survive forest fires and forest fires are nature's way of spring cleaning a forest of all the built up debris within it, called fuel. When we decided that forest fires were bad, it allowed for the unprecedented build up of fuel within forests. It grew to such a point, because of mankind's meddling, that when the forests burned, the trees had no hope of surviving what became crown fires. Basically fires that circumvented the natural resistances to fire (resin) that conifers actually have and killed entire stretches of forest like in the Tillamook Burn.

People messing up that homeostasis once again.

Invasive species being brought in for cultivation by people for food, resource, or even because it looks pretty in the yard, basically taking over and throwing off the entire balance of an existing ecosystem because there was nothing within the existing homeostasis to inhibit its population growth. Like rabbits in Australia.

We're dumb a**es really when it comes to nature. We mess things up all the time. That's why some of our still surviving natural areas engage in what is called the Yellowstone Ethics. It basically is a policy in which what happens in nature must go uninterrupted regardless of outcries from outraged viewers though even they will intervene if its a species that is being reintroduced back into the environment.

We mess up the homeostasis all the time in so many, many ways. From the little things like the phosphates in our soaps choking out wetlands already beleaguered by reed canary grass, an invasive species we introduced because "it looks pretty" to the building of jetties that basically break up the natural flow of sand and destroy ecosystems en masse. I can go on and on all day on this subject of humans interfering with homeostasis.

We, ourselves, are technically an invasive species just about everywhere. The only place that still kicks humanity's butt on a regular basis is where we came from originally--Africa.

PS, beezzer, never ask someone to answer a question or explain an idea when it was their degree and lifelong love. You'll get more than you bargained for.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


In your explanation with the water samples and the more powerful telescope you have made me think that that is what the problem is here .In your water sample there is things we don't see and can drink and be fine ...In the AGW camp they look at one of the smallest issues in the climate ,co2 but then blow it out of proportion in it's effects .I mean they have even claimed it to be a pollutant .It's essential for life and without it life would cease to exist ...People with green houses by the stuff to add to their green houses to increase grown in plants ....So far the records do not correlate with the earths temps and so they (GAW) people say the heat is hiding at the bottom of the oceans ...It's completely crazy ...