How Global Warming Really Works
- Thread starter Frisco_Slug_Esq
- Start date
And/or with fossil-fuel-powered tractors, N.B.
StrangeLife
Eater of beef
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Posts
- 3,760
Sequestered biofuel. Laid down gradually over millions of years and left in the Earth ever since. And now we're pumping and burning and releasing all that carbon into the air all at once -- did you think it wouldn't matter?! Ethanol just uses the carbon already above-surface and in circulation, that does nothing to change the composition of the atmosphere.
StrangeLife
Eater of beef
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Posts
- 3,760
Admitted. However the carbon that is tied up in jurassic biomass today was present in the atmosphere at a time when life thrived on the planet. Not human life, but certainly life aplenty. There is no reason to assume that our existence would be jeopardised in any way, if it was released back into the circulation.
Humans never coexisted with dinosaurs, but in theory we could have. Their climate was not hostile to us, nor was the air quality.
True.
False. Life on Earth has changed since then. You don't seem to appreciate the time-scales here. Again: Humanity has lived its entire existence to date in an Ice Age (yes, we're still in one) and is adapted to nothing else. We could adapt if the change came on over a few tens of thousands of years, which is the way ice ages come and go, but not over a few centuries, which speed of climate change is unprecedented in Earth's history except after extinction-level events.
No, we could not have breathed the air optimally, from what I've read, and Jurassic Park dinosaurs could not breath today's air optimally, possibly even not at all.
Last edited:
StrangeLife
Eater of beef
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Posts
- 3,760
That is debatable.
There seem to be a general consensus that the average temperature was 22 C, the CO2 concentration between 6 and 10 times higher than today and the O2 levels was 150 to 200% of todays. The average air pressure was around 28 psi, which is around double of today.
We would have no problem breathing that atmosphere, and the plants would be ecstatic. Crops would shoot up like rockets - you could forget about food shortage. We may have something to look forward to
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
Not exactl;y true.. there have been five extinction cycles, one directly related to an external source leading to the collapse of the environment
2 of the other 4 also had to do directly with environmental factors.. notably cooling and warming weathers.. as the weathers changed, the flora and fauna died off
the last had to with the formation of continets which.. you guessed it..caused massive environmental change..which killed everything
even in the minor extinction cycles.. environmental factos come into play over and over again..with the main two being global warming and global cooling
which leads directly to speciation..which is a period humanity is in.. where species are systematically wiped out.. which also leads to another extinct cycle of most species
as for the dinosaurs thing.. no, we would have dies..in minutes... trying to breathe the air would be like trying to breathe unaided on top of the Himalayas
Don't surprise me from what I've heard about Chicago.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
The warming globally has been a few scant degrees in the last several decades. That's a tremendous amount of heat, considering the size of the globe, but it doesn't make that much difference in a single weather pattern or a local temperature.
StrangeLife
Eater of beef
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Posts
- 3,760
Did you notice the doubling of oxygen content and airpressure? Living in an atmosphere like that is like being in a hyperbaric chamber - or the exact opposite of being on the Mount Everest.
The increased CO2 didn't replace the Oxygen - which we need in order to live - but some of the Nitrogen - which is an inert gas and basically nothing but filler. In a jurassic atmosphere we would breathe easier and our wounds heal faster. The dinos would breathe harder though, but that's ok - it would make it easier to outrun hungry T-Rex'es
One factor I cannot figure out though is the effect of the increased CO2 content in our blood. It will make us more acidic - that much is certain - and we will live. But other than that, I'm not sure....
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Bullshit.(edited)
The dinos would breathe harder though, but that's ok - it would make it easier to outrun hungry T-Rex'es
You don't think too clearly. Are you having difficulty breathing?
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Full speed ahead! Ignore the data.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif
StrangeLife
Eater of beef
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Posts
- 3,760
Or maybe I'm actually a T-Tex attempting to trick you into complacency. That's the cool thing about the Internet - you can't really know for sure. Hell, Bunny Slippers could be an alt for Obama himself having fun...
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Nothing better to post today?
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
...The IPCC has a long history of recruiting personnel with close links to activist organizations such as Greenpeace and the WWF. Despite an embarrassing scandal involving an incorrect WWF document and the melting of Himalayan glaciers last time around, this new IPCC report also treats WWF-produced literature as reliable evidence. When it released part two of its report at a meeting in Japan last month, the IPCC produced a blatantly activist brochure that talks about delivering “Hope for our Earth,” and of “Saving the planet for future generations.” When scientists join bandwagons rather than remaining scrupulously objective, they undermine their own credibility.
It is both fair and appropriate to judge an organization by it leader. The IPCC has been led, for the past 14 years, by a man who does not inspire confidence. For decades, Rajendra Pachauri incorrectly claimed he’d earned two PhDs. Only in the past year, and only due to persistent inquires on the part of Australian journalist Tony Thomas, was his CV fixed. When the IPCC – as an organization – was awarded half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Pachauri sent an e-mail to thousands of IPCC affiliated scientists mistakenly telling them “this makes each of you Nobel Laureates.” The IPCC later issued a formal statement admitting that it is improper for any IPCC-linked individuals to be described in this manner. Pachauri has repeatedly made statements about the qualifications of IPCC personnel and about the material on which the IPCC relies that have been shown to wrong. Taken together, the picture that emerges is of a man prone to exaggeration and careless with the truth. No organization with such an individual at its helm should be surprised when its conclusions are greeted with skepticism...
-Donna Laframboise
Phelia
in a submarine
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Posts
- 7,432
Two data points! We've solved The Climate!
We've gone down this road before, and I know this is not a productive endeavor, but I will point out again that your blue line is the average global surface temperature. The ocean is absorbing the heat, as has been in predicted in climate models for decades. Sea level is rising and polar ice sheets are melting faster in the last 20 years than they did in the previous 10,000.
Presenting that chart as "the data" and attempting to draw any sort of conclusion is very silly.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
That conjecture lacks both evidence and proof. The conjecture was floated as a possible explanation for the current seventeen year period of no significant warming. Recall that the original claim of CAGW was founded upon surface temperatures.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Dr. Judith Curry debates Kevin Trenberth, Ph.D.
Dr. Curry's PowerPoint slides:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/curry.pdf
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Have a look at a right answer.
http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/files/2012/07/seaiceextent-1953-2011.png
http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/files/2012/07/seaiceextent-1953-2011.png
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 92,086
If it's a global issue, wouldn't you use antarctic data as well as the arctic data?
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Really this is still going? And a bullshit "response" from notorious fail artist trysail? Jeez, even the Curry post is impossibly easy to show as not more than the ravings of a paid hack.
You know that because you are prestigious, independent institution, you can bring fresh eyes and credibility to this supposed problem.
How would you go about killing this potentially not-bad idea? How about picking a co-chair whose knowledge of the subject has been widely criticized? How about including a bunch of prestigious scientists who know very little about the subject and who have little involvement in the actual study? How about having your only actual climate scientist — presumably chosen for extra credibility — be Judith Curry? How about having a family member of the ill-informed co-chair be project manager? How about taking money from one of the biggest funders of anti-science disinformation in the world?
You know that because you are prestigious, independent institution, you can bring fresh eyes and credibility to this supposed problem.
How would you go about killing this potentially not-bad idea? How about picking a co-chair whose knowledge of the subject has been widely criticized? How about including a bunch of prestigious scientists who know very little about the subject and who have little involvement in the actual study? How about having your only actual climate scientist — presumably chosen for extra credibility — be Judith Curry? How about having a family member of the ill-informed co-chair be project manager? How about taking money from one of the biggest funders of anti-science disinformation in the world?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
No Antarctic data before the 1970's.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/04...-wishing-death-on-people-without-losing-them/
Part of being a science communicator is hoping a natural disaster kills as many members of the audience as possible, as soon as possible, with as much media exposure as possible. As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow.
The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is more dangerous than Nazism, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.
So we’ve probably reached the limits of what science communication can achieve. At this point only nature herself can close the consensus gap—or the fear gap...
-Brad
Last edited:
Is there any way to infer past temperatures from ice-strata?
