Evolution - physical sciences

[rov1200]

What part of evolution ensured that our planet is so finely balanced that an increase in Co2 created instability or global warming?

[sp1214]

Evolution only applies to living matter and DNA. Climate works best as a constant and any alteration affects those using the Earths resources. Just supposing there was a God and he created the human form which remained stable but instead the Earth's climate evolved. Obviously it would not work as having the heat of the Sahara one year and Icelandic freezing temperatures the next would create havoc and life would no longer exist.

The ideal solution would be life in its present form with some evolution thrown in. But you would think why don't humans grow four arms and legs which could benefit mankind but evolution has prevented this..

Therefore the most likely scenario is to have a fully formed human and a stable climate to exist in. Humans from single celled species is ridiculous as any sensible person would agree to.

[cassa333]

Distance from the sun.

Nothing to do with evolution at all.

[dizmouk2009]

How can it be nothing to do with evovution?

[mibn2cweus]

Might such a convoluted question have been contrived from a creationist viewpoint? I will nevertheless offer the following analysis:

Evolution has throughout history had a profound impact on the overall state of global climate, remarkably so with regards to the chemical composition of the atmosphere. For example; without the evolution of certain life forms the Earth would never have developed an oxygen rich atmosphere which turned a once Mars like red iron rich sky into the predominately blue sky some of us are still lucky enough to see today. This oxygen rich atmosphere not only provided the air required for more complex life forms to evolve but provided protection from destructive components of solar radiation.

Amongst evolutions most recent arrivals is a questionably highly intelligent species that has evolved the ability to work matches. This species has been highly successful in reproducing and replenishing the Earth to the point where its singular impact on the Earth's climate threatens to make its own environment inhospitable. It would seem that having evolved the ability to reason comes with a corollary requirement . . . the wisdom to consider that in the process of conforming the Earth's environment to suit ourselves we do so in a manner that will ensure our continued survival.

[jake-the-peg]

I think there is a more subtle element to this question than has been noted - read in the context of the Gaia question below.

There I noted "daisy world" which provides an illustration of the mechanism of evolution altering climate. In Daisy world you have a balance between white and black daisys - more white daisies reflect the sun and cool the planet which in turn affect the climate and the evolutionary niche that they occupy.

In a similar way you might argue that we may be affecting the Earths climate until the changes that we cause affect the climate in such a way as to change our evolutionary niche.


I'd imagine that as CO2 levels rose in the past you got more plant life due to raised temperatures and more CO2 that in turn captured more carbon regulating the atmosphere.

However we have had a profound effect on the amount of forestation.

However you have a lot of processes going on and it won't be a single simple story - that's why climate models are run on super computers and not on Excel spreadsheets!

[heathfield]

What global warming? Lord Monckton recently gave a very strongly-worded lecture in which he demonstrates that much of the data produced on the subject is either inaccurate, or even more worrying, simply false. Watch the video here... (Warning - It's over half-an-hour long. But if you bear with it, you may learn some very interesting facts. He ends by revealing the final wording of the Copenhagen Agreement - the part that has never published by any of the media - and which is politically horrifying for all of us in the western world).

http://soldierforlibe...th-on-global-warming/

[rojash]

And of course a MA in the classics and a journalism degree a the prime qualifications for lecturing on climate change.

[heathfield]

I'm surprised by such a non-relavent response from you of all people, Rojash. The annals of history are filled with the names of giants of endeavour, listed under the heading of ''Qualifications = (self-taught)''

[mibn2cweus]

As one who is a product of self-directed learning myself, I am constantly reminded of the fine line between self-taught and self-deluded. Ultimately reality teaches us the difference between what we think we have learned and what we really know.

[heathfield]

Quite true, Mibn. History will judge us all.!

[rojash]

Heathfield, you are right (to an extent). I confess that the first thing I did was look up the guy's qualifications, simply because the whole climate debate is full of people making wild claims based on nothing more than their own prejudices, and pseudo-science. Having actually watched his presentation, I have to admit, I found it more than a little disturbing. The problem now for me (and, I suspect, many others), is that we need a reasoned debate between sceptics such as Lord Monckton, and someone put up by the other side. I have a scientific and technical background, and a pretty high IQ, but I don't have the specialist knowledge to reach a conclusion based on his claims alone. I do know that this is the first time I've seen anyone present evidence in such a way as to cause me serious doubts.

[heathfield]

Well Rojash, you're not alone in not having come across reasoned arguments against global warming. The main reason appears to be that nearly all of the media are too scared to report on them. (As a single example, the world's most reputable scientific journals have been threatened with boycotts by pro-warming academics).

The Australian parliament recently threw out a carbon pollution reduction bill, despite frantic attempts by the climate change minister, Penny Wong, to have it passed. Before the vote, a senator (Fielding) called in scientists to examine the data presented by Wong, and they basically tore apart her arguments. Where or when did you see or hear any form of report on those scientists' findings in the UK media?

If you're so inclined, there's a long and detailed paper on it here...

http://jennifermaroha...%20on%20Wong-Z%20.pdf

[heathfield]

Oh. Senator Fielding's original 'three questions' and criticism of the government's answers are perhaps more easily looked at here...

http://www.sciencemed...loads/2009-6-24-1.doc

[rojash]

Heathfield, thanks for the links.

I suspect I'm the only person who spent the morning of New Year's Day reading such heavy material through the mists of my hangover.

[Old_Geezer]

How can it be directly related to evolution ? Evolution is usually applied to the changes living species go through. A changing climate is only related to evolution in as much as it can be a driving factor. If the climate changes the existing species are no longer a good fit to the environment, so those individuals who by chance survive better in the new environment are the ones who survive long enough to create the next generation, and then the cycle goes again. It is the only plausible system as any sensible person would agree.

That is not to say that the evolving lifeforms don't have a feedback loop into the environment too. What the living organisms do can have major effects, such as releasing "greenhouse gasses".

When something changes there are knock on affects. An increase in "greenhouse gasses" such as CO2 ensures that the planet loses less heat and so gets warmer. It's not a question of balance just of inevitable affect.

As for the climate change debate, well from what I can see scientific journals support the theory. They can't all be in the pay of someone, or deluded.