Stanford biology professor Elizabeth Hadly's research in the far reaches of the globe from India to Patagonia to Southeast Asia addresses the issues of what determines and maintains vertebrate (especially mammal) diversity through space and time and how that diversity is influenced by the environment.
Elizabeth Hadly is Associate Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Departmen of Geology and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University.
The research of Elizabeth Hadly probes how perturbations such as climatic change influence the evolution and ecology of Neogene vertebrates. She uses a combined field and laboratory approach to examine how ecological perturbations link or decouple levels of biological organization, because understanding the links among ecosystems, species, populations and genes is central to understanding how organisms exist, evolve and become extinct. She addresses problems in organismal biology from both evolutionary and ecological perspectives, primarily using extant mammals. One of the unique aspects of her overall approach is the focus on the decadal to millennial time scale, a scale that is little studied, although it is a scale that is integral to understanding links between ecology and evolution.
Professor Hadlyâ€™s field research involves excavation of finely stratified Holocene paleontological sites and collection of modern specimens in western North America and Patagonia. Construction of a state-of-the-art ancient DNA laboratory has made possible the study of genetic structure of populations through time. Laboratory work includes morphometric and molecular analyses with the intent to extend the level of investigation down to the population and genetic levels. Ongoing projects at the macroecological scale include the study of the ecological and evolutionary factors influencing biological diversity through a comparison of temperate terrestrial vertebrate faunas in North and South America.
Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by air pollution. In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasted that by 2100 global average surface temperatures would increase 3.27.2 °F (1.84.0 °C), depending on a range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions, and stated that it was now 90 percent certain that most of the warming observed over the previous half century could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities (i.e., industrial processes and transportation). Many scientists predict that such an increase in temperature would cause polar ice caps and mountain glaciers to melt rapidly, significantly raising the levels of coastal waters, and would produce new patterns and extremes of drought and rainfall, seriously disrupting food production in certain regions. Other scientists maintain that such predictions are overstated. The 1992 Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change attempted to address the issue of global warming, but in both cases the efforts were hindered by conflicting national economic agendas and disputes between developed and developing nations over the cost and consequences of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Any member of the class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded vertebrates having four limbs (except for some aquatic species) and distinguished from other chordate classes by the female's milk-secreting glands and the presence of hair at some stage of development. Other unique characteristics include a jaw hinged directly to the skull, hearing through bones in the middle ear, a muscular diaphragm separating the pectoral and abdominal cavities, and nonnucleated mature red blood cells. Mammals range in size from tiny bats and shrews to the enormous blue whale. Monotremes (platypus and echidna) lay eggs; all other mammals bear live young. Marsupial newborns complete their development outside the womb, sometimes in a pouchlike structure. Placental mammals (seeplacenta) are born at a relatively advanced stage of development. The earliest mammals date from the late Triassic Period (which ended 206 million years ago); their immediate ancestors were the reptilian therapsids. For 70 million years mammals have been the dominant animals in terrestrial ecosystems, a consequence of two principal factors: the great behavioral adaptability provided by the ability of mammalian young to learn from their elders (a consequence of their dependence on their mothers for nourishment) and the physical adaptability to a wide range of climates and conditions provided by their warm-bloodedness. See alsocarnivore; cetacean; herbivore; insectivore; omnivore; primate; rodent.
Here is a link to a recent MIT presentation on climate change. I think it is more than fair to say it is a good representation of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the true believers position on climate change. For me! I am not convinced. Some honest people believe the models are accurate about a 1.5 to 4 degree increase in average temperatures due to CO2 from man made sources over the next 100 years.
Me! Not so much.
First we have only an 8/10 of ONE degree C increase in the last 200 years.
Second, MODELS are just models. Not facts and not truth
Remember th UN panel MISSION is to establish man made change to the earth. No major change = NO JOB!
Models all rely on a massive UNPROVEN feedback loop where CO2 increases lead to run away water vapor triggers of AGW Global warming. This is very much in doubt and discounted as not true or not material.
Past increase in Global temperatures came FIRST! CO2 levels increased 500 to 800 years after temperatures increased and VEGATATION (Plants) increased CO2 production as temperatures rose.
Please keep an OPEN MIND!
Name calling Ad Hominem does not add to productive discussion! Deniers is a very bad label! If any thing it is AGW advocates that deny the FACTS and use NAZI like tactics to attack ideas that they do not like or can not debate!
No explanation of many previous warmings that can not be tied to man made increases in CO2
No explanation of 1940 to 1975 when temperatures declined despite CO2 increases
No real explanation of the last 200 or 2,000 or 20,000 or 200,000 years of climate data
No full disclosure of models and data included or excluded from models. In light of simple tools to find academic fraud or systemic error like BENFORDS LAW or digital frequency analysis it is no wonder that THEY run and hide and will not, have not, and I suspect never will fully disclose this data!
How much have the past 70 year period (1940 to 2010) temperatures increased as juxt opposed to the prvious 140 year period (1800 to 1940). YES HOW much of the 8/10 of ONE degree happened in the FIRST 140 years and how much in the last 70 years?
I know many well educated people who are skeptics.
Is 8/10 of 1 degree in 200 years what you call AGW?
Can you explain drop in temperatures from 1940 to 1975 while CO2 went up?
If not please shut up! Please shut up!
in 90 years will you please shut up? is 4/10 of 1 degree in 90 years OK?
What do you make of time period from 800 to 1100 or the Roman warm period?
The people who don't believe that the planet is warming - or that humans are responsible for that warming - really need to return to grade school. ( Maybe that would help.) As Periergeia has very correctly stated: the only thing that means anything is the LONG-TERM trend, and that is definitely UP. Short-term cooling over a period of a few years means NOTHING. Up and down can be found in ANY data set. That is the nature of data. Unless the doubters know how to do a least-squares fit - meaning consider the average values over an extended range within a data set, and a line through them - why not just keep your ignorant comments to yourself? Why post your ignorance? Is it valuable to others? I say no.
Every responsible, respectable scientist in the world (including virtually every climatologist) knows now - without any doubt - that the planet is rapidly WARMING. And get this, slow learners. If we warm it enough to release large quantities of METHANE, we're cooked. That is potentially doom for humans, as well as many other species. It means potential extinction for our rather arrogant species.
The people who think they know otherwise are - alas - pretty sad cases of IGNORANCE. Some of you don't even understand the concept of data! It is inherently noisy ! In the case of climate, one has to look beyond that noise to see the frightening signal. And it is alarming. The risk is: we push the planet into run-away. That's when it won't matter if we stop ALL use of fossil fuels. The planet will continue to heat up. And the reason will be: all the methane we have caused to be released. One estimate is: a trillion tons of it, just in the permafrost regions of Siberia and other Arctic zones. Methane about 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. It's the real danger. (Much more serious than CO2.) That's why warming of the Arctic is NOT GOOD.
Back to school for some of you. I get tired of reading stupid, uninformed comments on the subject of global warming. Because the issue is serious . We have only about a decade before we reach that run-away point, they figure. But it's been known since the latter part of the 19th century - for well over a hundred years - that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Any doubt in the dim minds out there that humans are releasing a LOT of CO2? And more and more every year? Some of you figure it all just disappears? No. It's been building up. Solid scientific data on that. It comes from dinosaurs, and plants that died many millions of years ago. It does not belong in the atmosphere, but that's where we've been putting it. At our peril.
These kinds of "arguments" work only on people who do not understand how one can manipulate "conclusions" by cherry picking noisy short term data, which admittedly, thanks to the poor education in the US, is almost everyone.
Of course, in reality, the long term UAH atmospheric temperature record shows nothing like the kind of development you are suggesting:
There was a short, particularly strong warming in 1998 and there was a small cooling in 2008. If you only look at those two noisy data points, you can, kind of, claim "no warning". If, OTOH, you "randomly" pick around 1997 and 2007 (just one year earlier!), you would get an indication of very strong atmospheric warming. In reality, both picks are equally invalid.
The totality of the data clearly shows long term warming. And, if you absolutely have to pray to noisy short term data, 2009-2010 is clearly looking up! But, of course, that, again, is meaningless in itself to people who are interested in reality rather than their own myths.
Originally Posted by RoyalWe
It cracks me up when people treat CURRENT global warming as a fait accompli. It's laughable.
As even the BBC is now reliably reporting, every system of atmospheric measurement (not to be confused with distorted land-based systems of measurement) show NO warming since 1998. The earth is not warming. In fact it's been cooling slightly since 2007.
May want sources. Otherwise when you make something up it just looks silly .
Are there NO positive benefits to warming? None? Is it all doom and gloom? Why are we convinced that today's climate is the ideal one? Are there as yet undiscovered species that will benefit from warming?