Global Cooling? I don't think so...

[frosty]

WASHINGTON – Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."

A line in the book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased."

That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."

Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.

Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.

"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.

Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.

President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change — claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."

Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.

Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.

"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.

Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino.

El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the Pacific Ocean, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records.

Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.

The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."

[frosty]

post on topic or don't post.

[blackdrgn]

Pretty obvious that it's the climates becoming unstable (from global warming), I didn't believe that it changed to global cooling.
Earth will eventually become like Mars imo, they need to think about controlling the amount of trees they cut down, since trees take a longer time to fully grow & the trees of this planet are a main producer of oxygen.
Our evolution went bad somewhere along the line.

[frosty]

some actually argue that we've stopped evolving since we no longer need it (our traits aren't based on survival since almost all of us live to produce young). although there has been recent findings that dispute that.

[Coded-Dude]

we continue to evolve in some areas but have(in a sense) devolved in others. I don't think there is a species on the planet that stops adapting, however lacking/losing traits necessary for survival could lead to extinction.

[jaxmkii]

Pretty obvious that it's the climates becoming unstable (from global warming), I didn't believe that it changed to global cooling.
Earth will eventually become like Mars imo, they need to think about controlling the amount of trees they cut down, since trees take a longer time to fully grow & the trees of this planet are a main producer of oxygen.
Our evolution went bad somewhere along the line.

false. plankton produces 70% of earths oxygen... we need the oceans more than the trees.

[Viper]

It's rather obvious our global climatologists cannot settle on a definite answer - are we cooling off or warming up?

It's becoming it's own political/religious entity. Now that I think about it, that must be why I'm Independent/agnostic on the subject.

[Negativity]

As I said earlier, with my non-descript post being deleted (it was ambiguously on topic):

We are being fed doomsday statements by the bucket load, too much for any one person to take in. I guess it does not frighten me that the Western world has had it's days; however, our entry into this world does seem to be unsettling as we have no forceful grasp as to our fate and the fate of others.

Hmmm, I really like the West. If only the majority of our discoveries and investments were to halt carbon emissions while maintaining our current affluence.

[Soda Jones]

It's hard for me to distinguish between what is a real concern and what is just total BS used to further political tree hugger goals.

[blurton]

yep, thats why i wouldnt try to argue with anyone about this kind of thing, because i just dont know enough

[jaxmkii]

am i the only one that actualy read this?... its actauly a article confirming global warming not suggesting cooling.

legitamite science agrees on this.

global warming is happening... but is it us thats causing it? and my own personal question is it nessicaraly a bad thing if humanity is reseting the geologicle clock buy RErelising carbon from ages past. (remember all fossil fuels camer from plats that once lived in a world wide tropic belt that whent as high as alaska.)

could having the tropics in acorage really be all that bad?

[frosty]

I can agree with you guys... the tree-huggers aren't the enemies here though. It's the corporate world that has latched onto their philosophy because they figured out a way to make a profit from it. Remember carbon credits? Yeah.

[curryking1]

false. plankton produces 70% of earths oxygen... we need the oceans more than the trees.

Isn't it algae?

Plankton are floating micro-organisms I thought. Or swimming I guess.

[Viper]

Algae are considered a part of the Plankton classification which makes you both correct.

[JasonXe]

Algae are considered a part of the Plankton classification which makes you both correct.

Hurray, we are all winners :-D

[Soda Jones]

am i the only one that actualy read this?... its actauly a article confirming global warming not suggesting cooling.

legitamite science agrees on this.

global warming is happening... but is it us thats causing it? and my own personal question is it nessicaraly a bad thing if humanity is reseting the geologicle clock buy RErelising carbon from ages past. (remember all fossil fuels camer from plats that once lived in a world wide tropic belt that whent as high as alaska.)

could having the tropics in acorage really be all that bad?

Interesting point.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I think regardless if mankind is causing or driving global warming, it's a moral issue, it's our responsibility to take care of the planet as best we can. Reducing and eliminating carbon emissions/pollution/deforestation and recycling and all that shit is something we should do because it's the right thing to do. Not because we fear our imminent doom. Responsible people keep their houses tidy right? You don't have to be OCD but we keep our homes livable. Earth is everyone's home, it just makes sense not to fuck it up. People need to motivate themselves and each other to do the right thing because then we all win, not because we're afraid of our doom. Although there are consequences to every action.



Earth: It's where we live! And until we've colonized the galaxy we really should be more careful with it.

[Soda Jones]

I strongly agree that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of this planet. It must be balanced with our ability to thrive. Extremism to either side is unhealthy and ridiculous. Using one to strengthen the other is the solution.

[masonite]

The doomsayers on the hippie side of things are just as bad as the deniers on the other. It's unfortunate that most time seems to be devoted to these two ignorant groups arguing nonsensically against each other than is devoted to actually finding ways of halting the gradual increase in temperature.

I think it's fair to say by now that the temperature is increasing, and carbon is contributing to it - but the effect of the increase in temperature isn't as simple as saying "it'll just get a big warmer in the cooler areas". Weather systems are infinitely intricate, slight shifts in models can massively throw shit out of whack.

People will always try and profit from anything - we're opportunists, it's what we do. The difference is that global warming profiteers are jumping on board something as it's getting started - they're seeing an opportunity and going for it. Those in the denier's camp are doing the opposite - they've had their opportunity, and they're trying to shield people from what's occuring in order to prolong the profits.

[GodMachine_Iridius_Dio]

am i the only one that actualy read this?... its actauly a article confirming global warming not suggesting cooling.

legitamite science agrees on this.

global warming is happening... but is it us thats causing it? and my own personal question is it nessicaraly a bad thing if humanity is reseting the geologicle clock buy RErelising carbon from ages past. (remember all fossil fuels camer from plats that once lived in a world wide tropic belt that whent as high as alaska.)

could having the tropics in acorage really be all that bad?

In short - We aren't worried you're going to release just a little carbon, we're concerned you're going to release the cumulative effect of tens, or even hundreds of millions of years of carbon sequestering in the span of a few hundred years.

With that said - If you have the tropics in Alaska, what do you have in the tropics? Picture that if it's 110 in Alaska, it's 85-90 at the poles, it's 150-160 at the equator. The world starts to look a lot different - The equator becomes virtually uninhabitable, and between 350-500 miles north and south of the equator nothing grows. Antarctica, Siberia, Greenland, the Northern Polar Region all thaw, adding another 100 meters in ocean depth. World-wide you lose an area larger than Australia due to oceanic encroachment, though you gain some area in a newly-habitable Antarctica. Optimistically you only lose eighty percent of the species there, but possibly more, with similar percentages of plant and animal species lost globally. The oceans become far less saline, and far warmer, leading to similar loss of biodiversity there. The mid-Atlantic current shuts down due to the rappid injection of fresh water into the system, which leads to a rappid drop in temperatures in Europe, with most if not all of Great Brittain locked in a several-decade-long ice age. The Saharah Desert, gobbles up an area of Africa larger than India. Places like Tunisia (which are already at 145 degrees now) now deal with day-time temperatures that soar around 200 degrees. You lose more than half the world's population due to famine because nothing you're used to cultivating grows anymore. Animals today aren't designed to deal with the concentration of carbon dioxide now in the air, so now you all exhibit symptoms similar to long-term inhalation of air duster. The warmer ocean temperatures thaw frozen methane deposits, burried in the ocean floor, which released in the quantities we suspect are there could raise temperatures by another hundred degrees globally. This kind of ecological change isn't bad, per-se, it's only contextually bad. If this all happened over hundreds of millennia, or a few eons, it wouldn't be so bad - Civilization and ecology might have time to adapt, but all at once in the span of a few hundred years... You'd be looking at an extinction event not seen since the dinosaurs.

It seems much smarter for you to consider that you *really* do have an effect on the world, and to try to keep equilibrium while it's still kinda nice here, rather than to be scrambling with your pants down when you see the whole thing cascading past the point of no return.

You have to consider that man kind, with all its numbers has become a force of nature. The evidence for that is right in front of you. You have shaped and molded this planet to your will. You've conquered the vast majority of it in such a way that no single hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, tsunami, or volcano, can erase your influence. You *are* a force of nature, and if you wish to keep from wrecking this place, you've got to learn how to live sustainably.

I have no political agenda, only time to think.


Dio


PS: On the subject that human evolution has come to a hault - consider that your evolution continues, but via a different mechanism. While basically true that you no longer evolve based on survival of the fittest, you do diverge into categories (which will become apparent in time) based on biological preference, and sexual selection. It's actually a lot faster than typical evolution, as you'll come to see in time.

Certainly there will be a backlash to what I've said - Someone will inevitably conclude that I've concocted a doomsday scenario. Unfortunately, I wish I had. It's a simple equation - You're basically reverting the entire atmosphere back to a state that it existed in millions of years ago in a few centuries. Ecosystems (which you're a part of) aren't designed with those kinds of tolerances in mind, and if pushed beyond those parameters, they collapse.

[curryking1]

The whole deal is we don't know the tolerances of the planet, and that is the most dangerous thing.

The major issue is since we don't know, why are we toying with the system? If we don't know when the breaking point is, why should we head in the direction to look for it?

It doesn't make sense like that.

There are things we do know however.

Off the top of my head for greenhouse gases... the half life of CO2 is 500 years in the atmosphere. This is easily calculated, considers how much we CO2 we put into the atmosphere, and how much is there over time. So basically what is in the air now is going to be there for a while. At the same time, what's the point in adding more?

CO2 in the atmosphere is really high right now. This is not a random fabrication, this is extremely relevant. We just don't know how much the Earth can tolerate, and because we don't know what the tolerance is that itself makes it a lot more dangerous to be carelessly throwing CO2 among other things into the air.

As well.... think about this too. We are basically throwing carbon into the air which was fixed by nature over millions of years... every year. Makes you go... errr.... wtf? That's probably not good. That's basically what oil and natural gas is of course, fixed carbon by plants which are compressed over time. When you speak of sustainability, this is not very good.

At least we're not adding CO nearly as much, which would be much more devastating. It's certainly not doomsday in 2012, but it's certainly not that we're not changing anything. The point is we don't know.

Secondly, warming is not just for our temperatures.

This is a vicious cycle we should avoid playing with too much (again we don't know when too much is, but why be zealous in finding out by actually doing it?).

Warmer water has less of an ability to dissolve CO2. Think of how much CO2 is dissolved in water, and how CO2 is stored as different components of solids, and you can figure out how bad that is yourself.

Anyway... in total for that. CO2 is much, much higher than it has been in millions of years. We are unsure how much that will effect oceans and release more CO2, and we are unsure

Again, point is, pretty dangerous to play with things that are potentially dangerous and we don't understand enough.

There's also ozone stuff...

This has to do with UV obviously. With UV, a really important thing is we don't know the effects of UV on the ocean systems. The oceans from what I can remember right now are safer than we are probably on land, because CO2 and O3 destroying stuff is much less over the ocean, which is of course good.

Like jax said (thanks for the correction btw) all the plankton in the ocean basically gives us all our O2. We don't know the effect of UV on those systems. A lot of UV is generally not good for any life... so it's probably not good to have O3 depletion anywhere.

UV is obviously a nice mutagen. Don't forget we need UV for vitamin production, I'm sure many other organisms do as well, and the Ozone does not completely block UV anywhere also.

The ozone holes in the Antarctic have more to do with a lack of sunlight and photolysis required for photochem reactions up in the atmosphere (remember the Artic/Antarctic don't have light for half a year each). When temp drops below a critical point here, there's a few reactions that occur I can't remember which produce a lot of Cl when the sun does in fact return to the region.

This effect is less in the Artic because it tends to be warmer (Artic has an ocean under it, plus mountains, turbulence, air is usually warmer).

The anthropogenic contributions however, well we shouldn't help O3 depletion, that's not a good idea. That's done through CFCs of course. Thankfully we don't launch Br into the atmosphere, which is about 1000x more effective in the same reactions as Cl in destroying O3.

It's pretty interesting stuff. I don't feel like remembering more right now, too lazy, that's all I got for now.

Garf put it well before also: the main reason we should control emissions and such is this... clean air is better to breathe than unclean air. Outside feels better without excess pollution.

Anyway, if you want a real assessment of the environment, don't bother asking a politician, or some random corporation, or Al Gore.

I'm always bothered when people say 'the information is too muddled' or too politicized. Well, it is. But that doesn't mean it isn't something to try and learn about. It's a very important topic. Go to other sources, go to a college or university, go phone a professor randomly, these people who have much less investment in political or commercial gain. Obviously it's easier for a student to do these things, but there's plenty of people who can give you an impartial opinion on the subject.

If you didn't read any of my post, the only thing you really need to know is:

We don't know enough and nobody does, and because we don't know enough that is why it's dangerous to toy with the system.

The issue is not really only global warming, it's more broadly screwing up all sorts of things in the nice planet we have now, and we don't know how much will do it or when it will do it, so... yea.

[Travis]

global cooling? more like global lukewarmedness amirite guys? haha

[TimmyJ]

eScDfYzMEEw

[Xer0]

Personally, I'm convinced.

On what though, I dont know, I'm sure itll change again next week.

[Paz]

Third Coldest October On Record (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report)

[jaxmkii]

With that said - If you have the tropics in Alaska, what do you have in the tropics? Picture that if it's 110 in Alaska, it's 85-90 at the poles, it's 150-160 at the equator. The world starts to look a lot different - The equator becomes virtually uninhabitable, and between 350-500 miles north and south of the equator nothing grows. Antarctica, Siberia, Greenland, the Northern Polar Region all thaw, adding another 100 meters in ocean depth.ok your number are a little off and you don't understand how the effects of CO2...

1. if all the worls ice melts that total volume would raise seal levels 2.2 meters... not 100

2. Co2 increases AVERAGE tempuratures. computor models and geologic records from times when that massive tropic belt that formed all the oil. shows just that a tropical belt from the equator to alaska. C02 just dosen't make it hotter it stabalises the tempuratures. the nights don't cool off as much, the coolest regions of earth warm up IE the poles while the tropical bellt see's little change.

right now we are seeing a lack of rain in many areas because as the average temp warms up. the atmospher can hold more water so we are now in the part of the water cycle that is evaporation. evaporation has a cooling effect helping to mask golbal warming and sea melt. eventualy we will hit critical mass whan tempuratures in nothern regions will clim rapidly while current tropical regions will remain unchanged aside from a lack of rain. eventualy the rain returns even highter than befor e combined with higher average temps in the hight lats the tropical belt extends far into cannada.

with a warmer wetter planet plant life on earth explodes... and begins caputring the carbon that started it all.

[jaxmkii]

Third Coldest October On Record (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report)

effects of eveaporation. the earth is sweating.

[Gaul]

some actually argue that we've stopped evolving since we no longer need it (our traits aren't based on survival since almost all of us live to produce young). although there has been recent findings that dispute that.

It would make sense. Our intelligence is to a point where evolution no longer seems necessary, as we have enormous capability to adapt instantly through ingenuity to whatever changes we need to.

Also, on the point your making, More than just some people argue against evolution all together.

[Viper]

Just because we think we're smart, doesn't mean we do not still evolve.

In fact, the entire notion is laughable.

[Paz]

Yes, evolution is a slow biological process forged by the environment in organisms, not a subconscious desire. There is a difference between adapting to one's surroundings and changing to better survive as an organism in a competitive and diverse ecosystem.

[Hitman]

I dunno about you guys but myself personally I have noticed it.


For 14 days in a row it was 48 to 59 degrees outside in the heat. That was in the hottest place in australia, the northwest coast. I fkn nearly died working in that. Also there was 3 major cyclones that hit land and a huge cat 4 that didn't hit land last year, I was in all of them. It is expeptional and abnormal conditions/extremes.

Oh and for all ya'll Americicans 59 degrees celsius, not the fuked up imperial measurements you guys use. The bloody left side of the road is for driving, inches are useless....AAAAHHH

[Gaul]

Just because we think we're smart, doesn't mean we do not still evolve.

In fact, the entire notion is laughable.

Care to explain a little?

It's not laughable at all.

For example: Animals living in colder climates will, over time, evolve to deal with these circumstances. Maybe their fur coats will grow thicker, or they will develop more layers of skin. They evolve to adapt to the circumstances they are required to deal with.

Human beings are no different, agreed. If the need for evolution is there, undoubtedly it will occur just like for any other species on the planet. Given the opportunity, evolution would effect the human race like it would anything else.

However, humans are significantly more intelligent than any other species on he planet. When humans live in cold climates, They wear warm clothing. We eliminate the need for evolution through ingenuity. We stunt evolutionary growth just like certain diets are said to stunt the growth of an individual. Unfortunately, we also destroy our planet through it.

GRANTED: This is obviously something we can hardly prove at this point, and it is only speculation, a theory. Point being, however, that this logic does seem to have a backing in sense.

[curryking1]

I think the point Viper was making is that you may be overestimating the capacity of human ingenuity and technology today. Even on top of that, society itself is a limiting factor on these things.

People don't live in the Sahara or Gobi desert. And millions of people flee changing conditions in places where people have lived for a long period of time or even where large cities are. Heck, look at Bangladesh, whole cities and regions are crumbling because of changing conditions. Which brings another limiting factor into this: the economy and money.

I would also say, although your thinking is intuitive and logical, that perspective is very narrow and missing a lot of key points in it's disfavour and I don't think it's realistic at all.

Yes, we do have a rather high encephalization quotient, but not by much. Although we do have relatively large frontal cortexes too... but still...

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. :P That's how we lose track of things lol.

I would say most of our learning is not really our 'brain power' but our ability to communicate and write things down.

"The faintest ink is more powerful than the strongest memory."

Still, no reason to say 'GG' to the universe or anything.

[Dralor]

You are falling into the trap of thinking that evolution is a response to outside stimuli. The mutations will happen anyways. It's only the outside pressures that select for some mutation as being better.

Thus if some mutation gives someone slightly less physical strength but increases their ability to learn and store information that might be a beneficial mutation in today's society. Of course if the person turns into a complete bookworm with no life it will die out with them as there was no procreation. Hell it might not even increase the rate of getting a mate that much so it might not take over just exist in a few.

[Viper]

Care to explain a little?

It's not laughable at all.

For example: Animals living in colder climates will, over time, evolve to deal with these circumstances. Maybe their fur coats will grow thicker, or they will develop more layers of skin. They evolve to adapt to the circumstances they are required to deal with.

Human beings are no different, agreed. If the need for evolution is there, undoubtedly it will occur just like for any other species on the planet. Given the opportunity, evolution would effect the human race like it would anything else.

However, humans are significantly more intelligent than any other species on he planet. When humans live in cold climates, They wear warm clothing. We eliminate the need for evolution through ingenuity. We stunt evolutionary growth just like certain diets are said to stunt the growth of an individual. Unfortunately, we also destroy our planet through it.

GRANTED: This is obviously something we can hardly prove at this point, and it is only speculation, a theory. Point being, however, that this logic does seem to have a backing in sense.
It is impossible to render the evolutionary process null via our own constructs. The diversity of the world, the climates, ecosystems, habits, activities...the entire dynamics of human life cannot be relegated to such a single constant condition removing the necessity for evolutionary change.

And even still our own intervening itself causes new evolutionary changes based on the conditions we've created.

[Gaul]

Dr. Phil says no to pornography =\

[masonite]

with a warmer wetter planet plant life on earth explodes... and begins caputring the carbon that started it all.

Not if we've reduced the tree population to the point where an "explosion" simply can't take place, and not if the conditions were severe enough/ shifted enough to completely eliminate what depleted habitat currently remains for those species.

[Coded-Dude]

It is impossible for human beings to adapt to the environment when we construct our own climate. Do not take this as a comment for or against climate change. What I am talking about is our development of climate controlled environments(i.e. buildings with heat and air). We may still be evolving, but we are certainly not evolving based on climate change, and if something drastic does in fact happen to current climate conditions, i do not think we are prepared to handle it. This is actually one of my arguments for the de-evolution of humanity.

[Dralor]

There is no such thing as de-evolution. Evolution in a perceived wrong direction is still evolution.

[JasonXe]

I think I know what we need..

VcJI87u3DoQ

[masonite]

It is impossible for human beings to adapt to the environment when we construct our own climate. Do not take this as a comment for or against climate change. What I am talking about is our development of climate controlled environments(i.e. buildings with heat and air). We may still be evolving, but we are certainly not evolving based on climate change, and if something drastic does in fact happen to current climate conditions, i do not think we are prepared to handle it. This is actually one of my arguments for the de-evolution of humanity.

If the changes in the climate are slow enough, then we can certainly evolve to suit. But we're talking thousands of generations - and the changes we're seeing are much faster than that, so in terms of the current climate change, you're right. But Dralor is right in that there's no such thing as de-evolution - we might cover similar ground multiple times in our evolution (although its extremely unlikely), but the mutations will never un-mutate.

Also, even with drastic changes in climate, we will evolve based on those climactic changes. We won't adapt - but we will evolve. Depending on the effect of the climate change, if a population is dependent on certain climactic trends, and those trends change, we could potentially see entire ethnic groups and populations die out over time, cultures could be lost as those groups disintergrate, and - particularly in today's world - we could see any populations displaced by climate change cause large changes in the rest of the world as they emigrate to other nations and bring their culture and genetics with them.

Severe side effects of climate change, if they happen quickly enough (or at all), will kill off many millions of people (perhaps billions, depending on effects and area), but such a mass loss of life and mass displacement of life will profoundly affect the course of our evolution.

[nikdevid]

The scientists found that during as sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the higher latitudes cooled, temperatures in the mid-latitudes or the tropical regions stayed fairly stable. Theoretically, the scientist say, the tropics should have cooled as well. This finding brings into question the role that a decrease in concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, had on cooling the poles.