The latest Carnival of Evolution is up, over at Evolution: Education and Outreach. Adam Goldstein curated this one.
Evolution of the Carnival? No, Carnival of Evolution! (Image from Carnival of Evolution #62 at Ecology and Evolution Footnotes)
Evolution sheds light on global warming and its effects, even:
Adaptation to drought conditions. Casey Terhorst’s post begins, “Global climate change will increase the frequency and duration of drought in many places,” reporting the surprising result that understanding the response of soil microbes to a drought requires an understanding of the reaction of plants with which they share the soil. Perhaps most striking is the claim that important evolutionary changes can occur in as few as three generations of the plants, an elapsed time of 6 months.
Hey, while you’re at it, take a look at Carnival of Evolution #71, too, at Chimeras.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Idiotic statements, Ed, do not make an argument.
As if people deny climate! Hohohho! What a diddy you try to pass here!
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” That’s you, Ed.
LikeLike
So it’s a cartoon from 2010! Some things in climate denialism just never, never change.
LikeLike
Thanks – it seemed to be the week cartoons link but it looks like a lot of my old posts are now appearing – sorry for the clutter
LikeLike
Give me some of the key words, I’ll see if it’s stuck in spam. I’m on the road, still getting extreme spam attacks . . . but will try to see.
LikeLike
hqtqtqpq:q/q/qmq.qtqhqeqwqeqeqkq.qcqoqmq/qcqaqrqtqoqoqnqsq/qiqnqdqeqxq/q2q0q0q8q0q2q/qeqxqaqmqiqnqiqnqgq-qtqhqeq-qeqvqiqdqeqnqcqeq-qfqoqrq-qcqlqiqmqaqtqeq-qcqhqaqnqgqeq
LikeLike
m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
LikeLike
Been trying to post for several days from two computers – doesn’t complain, just won’t post – doesn’t seem to like one url
LikeLike
http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
been trying to post this for several days from two different computers
LikeLike
Someone cropped the signature.
LikeLike
http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
LikeLike
http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
Someone cropped the signature.
trying to post this for several days from 2 different computers
LikeLike
Pinko Punko said…
Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.
LikeLike
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/propositions-and-dots.html
LikeLike
rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/propositions-and-dots.html
Pinko Punko said…
Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.
m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
Someone cropped the signature.
LikeLike
test
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/propositions-and-dots.html
Pinko Punko said…
Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.
http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
Someone cropped the signature.
LikeLike
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/propositions-and-dots.html
Pinko Punko said…
Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.
http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
Someone cropped the signature.
LikeLike
http://rabett.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-06-06T00:22:00-07:00
Anonymous Pinko Punko said…
Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.
http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
Someone cropped the signature.
LikeLike
http://rabett.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-06-06T00:22:00-07:00
Anonymous Pinko Punko said…
Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.
http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
Someone cropped the signature.
17/5/14 5:19 PM
LikeLike
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/propositions-and-dots.html
Pinko Punko said…
Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.
http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
Someone cropped the signature.
17/5/14 5:19 PM
LikeLike
Anyone know who is the cartoonist for this?
LikeLike
Of course it isn’t. There is absolutely no science behind your assertion.
LikeLike
The warming ocean is due to the activities of humans.
LikeLike
Read it again, Ed.
Neither have anything to do with “man”
LikeLike
Please read again what you quoted:
LikeLike
Darn, Ed. More “it ain’t human caused”
Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources
AUSTIN, Texas — Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
LikeLike
No matter what tyranny you wish to enact upon free men, you will never stop idiots.
But you will most certainly destroy freedom.
LikeLike
We need adequate rules and barriers to prevent idiots from killing themselves and their children, and others. Some humans seem simply incapable of using reason in dealing with chemicals, even simple ones like water — or more stealthy ones like carbon dioxide.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712
LikeLike
By your position, because water -in your mind- could be a pollutant, you believe we need to act now and limit the water available to life on earth – just in case.
LikeLike
Yes, water could be a pollutant. Hot water kills fish (indeed, any great temperature difference in water can kill the little buggers, when you want them to stay alive).
It’s a parody, but there is a great piece Joel Achenbach (sp?) did in the Washington Post demanding regulation of dihydrogen monoxide, listing its many, many dangers.
I’ve noted before, it’s in the dose, in the place, in the time.
For water, it’s at a premium in the cold northern deserts where I grew up. But we still build dams to control it. During one nasty spring melt season (probably aggravated by global warming), Utah turned one of the major streets in Salt Lake City into a river, sandbagging the sides of the street to keep the water flowing there, and not flooding the rest of the City. The great, late Scott Matheson, then governor, looked out on the thing and said, “This is a helluva way to run a desert.”
There are two distinct drowning responses, both involve the human body’s attempts to control salt levels in the blood and lungs and stomach. In fresh water, the body pulls salt out of the blood and tries to balance out the salinity of the water in the lungs or stomach. Generally this sufficiently depletes salts in the blood, causing circulatory collapse and heart attack. In salt water, the body pulls salt out of the fluids in the lungs or stomach, making the blood too saline, causing circulatory collapse and heart attack. If you’re paying attention, you’ll note this poses an issue of simply drinking too much water — and generally, the rule is that 16 pints of water is enough to be fatal. Water intoxication. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712
LikeLike
By your bizarre definition, water is a pollutant – indeed everything is.
Your ilk zealotry turns words to meaningless.
LikeLike
For better and for worse, Ed, I read almost everything you post
LikeLike
CO2 is necessary AND a pollutant.
O2 is necessary, AND in abundance, especially after birth, can be fatal and cause blindness.
N2 is inert, BUT can be fatal in great concentrations.
In your stomach is a 5% solution of hydrochloric acid. That doesn’t mean it’s safe to drink such a solution, nor that you could bathe in it without harm.
Life is not black and white, but possible only in the grays.
CO2 is necessary for life on Earth; too much, it stifles life on Earth.
LikeLike
You never did read that evolution article, did you.
LikeLike
Exactly, Ed. Co2 is a requirement of life, and not a pollutant. Its usefulness is in making life, but you want to limit Co2, thus YOU WAN TO LIMIT LIFE.
Again, your lack of science knowledge is astounding. If there was no Co2 in the air, we would NOT be a ball of ice, Ed, – sorry, you have no idea how the Earth keeps warm.
Without Co2, live as we know it on the Earth would cease.
So your zealotry you want to end live on earth in the horrific mistake thinking Co2 is the major warming cause….. eek.
LikeLike
Selenium is just a marginal nutrient. Vitamin K is just a marginal nutrient.
Try living without them.
You keep failing to recognize that chemicals, even in very small quantities, can have great influence on dynamic fluids and their flows, and heat flows.
CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, but one without which the Earth would be an ice ball. Double that minor trace, Earth may become an anti-ice ball.
LikeLike
Life adapts to the ever changing Earth.
Why this surprises you now is funny.
LikeLike
So typical of ego-centric world view, Ed.
What is too thick or too thin or just right for Co2? You haven’t a clue.
Co2 adds but a marginal component, as already presented. You are spitting in the ocean declaring you are making waves.
LikeLike
I merely noted that evolution has something to say in the discussion of what to do about global warming. You were the one who raised completely different issues.
LikeLike
Most of the heat comes from the Sun, yes. The blanket of carbon dioxide that traps the heat and warms us, too much if the blanket is too thick, is now mostly man-made.
LikeLike
Thanks for identifying the Zhao and Feng piece.
LikeLike
First, Ed, it isn’t plagiarism when I put it in quotes … that kinda states it is a copy from source.
Further, in the past, you haven’t read the stuff anyway.
If YOU want to find the source YOU use Google. This is a tactic to get YOU to actually start doing YOUR own work and reading more than the stupid junk you seem to have married yourself to.
LikeLike
ZHAO X H, FENG X S. Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations (in Chinese). Chin Sci Bull (Chin Ver), 2014, 59: 1284, doi: 10.1360/972013-1089 http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtb/CN/abstract/abstract514043.shtml
The obtained results demonstrate that solar activity and the Earth’s temperature have significant resonance cycles, and the Earth’s temperature has periodic variations similar to those of solar activity
This study also implies that the “modern maximum” of solar activity agrees well with the recent global warming of the Earth. A significant correlation between them can be found.
As pointed out by a peer reviewer, “this work provides a possible explanation for the global warming”.
Darn annoying science, Ed, shows that the Sun, not man, causes changes in the variation of temp.
LikeLike
Duh?
So you raise a piece that has nothing to with your myth that man is “changing” the climate to reinforce your myth that man is “changing” the climate.
Typical of the utter confusion in your head, Ed.
LikeLike
“Location of El Nino, and not existence?”
What????
”
Tracking El Ninos in the eastern Pacific, we see a dramatic increase in frequency. ”
You quote a piece that directly invalidates your own claim.
Undeterred, you continue to make the same claim, thinking that repeating what has already been utterly dismissed will somehow turn what is wrong into what is right?
Try reading AND understanding, Ed
“but relatively little long-term trend. El Niño events were strong in the last part of the 19th century and first part of the 20th century and again in the latter part of the 20th century, with weak El Niño events in the middle of the 20th century.”
LikeLike
Here’s the paper my original post referred to, BF. Got anything to say on topic?
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1785/20140028
From the Proceedings of the Royal Society:
LikeLike
Location of El Nino, and not existence?
Tracking El Ninos in the eastern Pacific, we see a dramatic increase in frequency. Your defense is that they existed in other places, earlier?
That doesn’t change the fact that when such an event occurs in the eastern Pacific, it changes weather dramatically across Central, North and South America — a result of climate change that shifts the location more frequently.
Back to the drawing board, BF. If you can’t figure out where you get the stuff, you don’t get to complain when I point out your sources really said the opposite of what you claim.
LikeLike
I may impose a new standard: When a poster quotes extensively from a source, it’s ruled plagiarism, and deleted, unless there is adequate citation.
If you can’t be bothered to make your case, saying Google exists won’t save you.
LikeLike
and this…
“…However, the null hypothesis that the location of El Niño can be represented as a random distribution about a central longitude of about 140°W cannot be rejected….”
In other words, Ed, nature wins and its not “man-made”
LikeLike
Duh?
From your own quote, Ed – do you ACTUALLY READ!??
“….Using the new index, El Niño in the reanalysis shows prominent decadal variability of strength but relatively little long-term trend…”
LikeLike
Learn to use Google, because in the past you haven’t read the sources presented anyway.
LikeLike
Well, that disagrees with Ray & Giese in 2011, doesn’t it?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006695/full
LikeLike
Got a source on that?
LikeLike
Again, not true, Ed.
Ray & Giese (2012) Historical changes in El Niño and La Niña characteristics in an ocean reanalysis found that El Niño events had not become stronger, or lasted longer, or occurred more often (among other things) since 1871. And manmade greenhouse gases are said to have caused global warming during that time period. The Ray & Giese (2012) abstract ends:
Overall, there is no evidence that there are changes in the strength, frequency, duration, location or direction of propagation of El Niño and La Niña anomalies caused by global warming during the period from 1871 to 2008.
LikeLike
“…more intense…”
Again, not true.
“During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
Furthermore, when each storm’s intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.”
LikeLike
Fewer hurricanes, but more intense storms.
Technically, Superstorm Sandy was not a hurricane during much of its destruction.
Intensity, sea level rise, and destruction, increase as predicted. Your denialism says, “well, yeah, we got all the bad stuff from climate change that the scientists predicted — but it wasn’t a hurricane, so it doesn’t count.”
Technical fouls only work in in basketball.
LikeLike
Facts, and your crucifix isn’t any use against these, BF:
http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina_new_faq.html
LikeLike
You’re the Kenneth that Dan Rather’s attackers were looking for, aren’t you?
LikeLike
The most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said it has “low confidence” of an increase in hurricanes or tornadoes.
The U.S. is likely experiencing fewer tornadoes compared with 50 years ago, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This year’s tornado season was historically low. . . .
The U.S. has not experienced a major hurricane in nearly 10 years.
What astonishes me is that in a world where access to facts is so easy, there are people like you who continue to believe and repeat the nonsense of man-made climate change.
LikeLike
Your claim about El Nino is non-factual. There is a very broad range of years between its oscillation – it is, again, a failure of your understanding of the natural chaos of nature by expecting nature is some how “regular” in its cycle.
There is no “increase” in frequency of anything – simple no fact to support your claim.
LikeLike
Some fascinating stuff there, Ed. I’ll be reading for days. Thanks!
LikeLike
“Increasing frequency” of X does not imply that previously there was no X.
For example: The El Nino phenomenon occurs about once a decade, historically, over the past 500 years.
Since 1950 it has increased in frequency, more than once per decade.
LikeLike
“Global climate change will increase the frequency and duration of drought in many places”
What idiocy!
The inference is that before there was no Climate change – hence no droughts.
Empty headed zealots with no real understanding of much at all….
LikeLike