All you dingbats crapping yourself over climate change

mkpdavies · 14-12-2006, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

From:-
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...970360,00.html

I found this news piece accidentally today. Although it mainly about the climatic dangers of nuclear war, the extracts below are relevant to what I posted earlier in this thread.

According to the research, tens of millions of people would die, global temperatures would crash and most of the world would be unable to grow crops for more than five years after a conflict.
There is a precedent for this sort of climactic change: major volcanic eruptions in the past have thrown global ecosystems into temporary turmoil.
The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 was the biggest such event on record. The resulting cloud of ash spread around the world and caused crops to fail the following year in North America and Europe, resulting in the worst famine of the century.

Which is why I don't understand why people are scaring themselves silly over one of the planets most useful gases, when a big old supervolcano in yellowstone is well overdue to blow.

Clippo · 14-12-2006, 07:19 PM

mpkdavies, (matt), I haven’t followed the detail of your spat with Besoeker in the last few posts but I know you’ve posted this geological CO2 content versus global temperature graph before.

For example, until the early Devonian period, I think I’m right in saying there was virtually no life of any sort, plant or animal, on land. Thus, there was an absence of CO2 reducing feedback. It is noticeable that, apart from the apparent spike in the middle of the Devonian, when plant life got going in the later Devonian / Carboniferous, (when the bulk of the coal measures and carbonate rock were laid down), there was a drastic reduction in CO2 levels & world temperature.

Now I’m certainly not saying this proves a link, far from it.

Your graph doesn’t include other possible greenhouse gases like methane. Neither the influence of the then predicted land masses, whether they were clumped together as on massive super-continent, (with implications for small continental shelves where much CO2 removal by sea organisms is thought to occur) or their positions relative to the equator seem to have been considered.

If you read deeply into these subjects, you'll see the real geological experts can't agree either so I think you are using very risky data.

Another interesting period is the Permian / Triassic boundary at about 250m years ago. This has long been known as the great extinction period – when it is estimated that 90-95% of all life on earth was killed. There have many theories for this, with the main focus on an asteroid (much bigger than the dinosaur killer) hit. Some suspect the remains of this is a crater off NW Australia. Other geologists say this could have triggered the release of vast amounts of methane so quickly that it would have literally smothered life. The methane could then have burned to CO2. Other scientists say this & other asteroid hits could have punctured the earths crust & started massive vulcanism.

I know you don’t particularly respect the New Scientist Matt but this is an interesting article. I think this article describes the ideas of one of the ‘authors’ of your graph. (Berner)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...xtinction.html

You know that I have stated previously (specifically to Biscuitman in a thread a few weeks ago), that I dislike acceptance of supposed data & I like to study the original peer-reviewed work. Could you give me the exact reference from which you got that graph or the individual data lines?

Without getting emotional about it I say again that I think you are ignoring many, many other factors in geological time that probably disrupted or blurs this relationship.

Clippo · 14-12-2006, 07:28 PM

mpkdavies wrote:

Quote:

Which is why I don't understand why people are scaring themselves silly over one of the planets most useful gases, when a big old supervolcano in yellowstone is well overdue to blow.

It might not blow for 100, 1000 or 10000 years. And you are assuming it will blow in one big bang so beloved by US disaster movies. That may not be true.

What I worry about is that 'one of the planets most useful gases' is increasing now so fast that latest predictions are that it is going to cause massive problems even sooner than the 100 years studied by Stern!

Hartlepool · 14-12-2006, 07:56 PM

Well,GW wasn't a generally discussed topic at the begining of the year and already we have experts going on and on about it.

Seeing as nobody has ever experienced a GW and all we have to go on is the data that keeps on getting regurgitated both for and against,why don't we all slow down for a while?

If January/February come in with a bang and a bit lower temperatures than normal,everyone will be obvious by their absence from this GW Topic,thats for sure.

At the end of the day,and this decade GW will be seen as whatever certain people wish to see it as.

I,myself,see it as a change from the normal.Nature has been doing that on a regular basis over the past 65 years that I have been observing it.

In that very short time we have had predictions of GW and new/mini ice ages,if they came,I felt nothing at all.

Thats all,a natural change,and nobody can prove otherwise,regardless of data charts and/or Historic files.

Giving this latest "imminent world catastrophy"exposure(is that the right word?)will have the sheeple repeating it,(as they snuggle down under their 99 togg duvets waiting for the non existent postperson bringing their benefit payments to take to the non existent postoffices.)

So,time to take a deep breath and remain focused on the real problems like Bliar,Lib-Lab-Cons and the real chance that the masses are actually stirring from their sleep.

What would we do if the sheeple awoke,and all turned ugly and insisted on being educated,educated,educated?

(About everything except freekin' GW.)

Besoeker · 14-12-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Where did I say I was picking at you?

1. You didn't. Nor did I say you did.
2. I didn't point to ANY part of the graph. That red arrow was on the graph as it appears in the same resource as you used.
3. I'm not claiming that it is a big deal.

It would perhaps be a bit more constructive if you responded to what I posted rather than what you think I posted.
There again, perhaps you have the right attributes to be a politician.
Provide the answer/comment you want to regardless of the question.
:wink:

Lazyguy · 14-12-2006, 09:33 PM

Why don't we drill a bunch of holes in the ground? Sorry, I forgot, saving humanity like this would ruin the whole world! We must tax ourselves for even thinking about this atrocity!

Besoeker · 14-12-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartlepool

Well,GW wasn't a generally discussed topic at the begining of the year and already we have experts going on and on about it.

Seeing as nobody has ever experienced a GW and all we have to go on is the data that keeps on getting regurgitated both for and against,why don't we all slow down for a while?

If January/February come in with a bang and a bit lower temperatures than normal,everyone will be obvious by their absence from this GW Topic,thats for sure.

At the end of the day,and this decade GW will be seen as whatever certain people wish to see it as.

I,myself,see it as a change from the normal.Nature has been doing that on a regular basis over the past 65 years that I have been observing it.

In that very short time we have had predictions of GW and new/mini ice ages,if they came,I felt nothing at all.

Thats all,a natural change,and nobody can prove otherwise,regardless of data charts and/or Historic files.

Giving this latest "imminent world catastrophy"exposure(is that the right word?)will have the sheeple repeating it,(as they snuggle down under their 99 togg duvets waiting for the non existent postperson bringing their benefit payments to take to the non existent postoffices.)

So,time to take a deep breath and remain focused on the real problems like Bliar,Lib-Lab-Cons and the real chance that the masses are actually stirring from their sleep.

What would we do if the sheeple awoke,and all turned ugly and insisted on being educated,educated,educated?

(About everything except freekin' GW.)

Hartelpool
As I have said elsewhere, I may not agree with your opinion but I would absolutely defend your freedom to express it.
So, a few points of mine on the same basis.
Few people would doubt that climate is changing and records would appear to indicate that it is warming. For UK, it's been the hottest July and September on record this year. Projected to be the year on record. Globally 10 of the hottest years in the last 12. Mean temperature has gone up by about 0.5C over about 50 years. So I think there is a fair body of stats to indicate that climate has, on average, warmed over the last few decades.
My personal observations over six decades (can't quite match your 6.5) incline me to that view also. You will no doubt remember the summer of '76. July 06 was worse. Arguably, I have experienced GW.
I don't think GW is really in dispute. Whether there is a significant man made contribution just might be.

In passing, I note that there seems to be a tendency for U-Kippers to refer to others not of your persuasion as "sheeple".
Probably better than being a smoked fish...........

Besoeker · 14-12-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazyguy

Why don't we drill a bunch of holes in the ground?

We're pretty good at drilling holes in the ground? Ever been to Western Deep Levels?

Besoeker · 14-12-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

mpkdavies, (matt), I haven’t followed the detail of your spat with Besoeker in the last few posts ]

Och, it's not a spat. I'm just trying to get him to look analytically at the data he presents.

mkpdavies · 15-12-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Where did I say I was picking at you?

1. You didn't. Nor did I say you did.
2. I didn't point to ANY part of the graph. That red arrow was on the graph as it appears in the same resource as you used.
3. I'm not claiming that it is a big deal.

It would perhaps be a bit more constructive if you responded to what I posted rather than what you think I posted.
There again, perhaps you have the right attributes to be a politician.
Provide the answer/comment you want to regardless of the question.
:wink:

I rarely have a clue what you are asking, it is so vague and wooly. I will stop trying to guess in the future.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-12-2006, 07:19 PM	#22 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,780	mpkdavies, (matt), I haven’t followed the detail of your spat with Besoeker in the last few posts but I know you’ve posted this geological CO2 content versus global temperature graph before. For example, until the early Devonian period, I think I’m right in saying there was virtually no life of any sort, plant or animal, on land. Thus, there was an absence of CO2 reducing feedback. It is noticeable that, apart from the apparent spike in the middle of the Devonian, when plant life got going in the later Devonian / Carboniferous, (when the bulk of the coal measures and carbonate rock were laid down), there was a drastic reduction in CO2 levels & world temperature. Now I’m certainly not saying this proves a link, far from it. Your graph doesn’t include other possible greenhouse gases like methane. Neither the influence of the then predicted land masses, whether they were clumped together as on massive super-continent, (with implications for small continental shelves where much CO2 removal by sea organisms is thought to occur) or their positions relative to the equator seem to have been considered. If you read deeply into these subjects, you'll see the real geological experts can't agree either so I think you are using very risky data. Another interesting period is the Permian / Triassic boundary at about 250m years ago. This has long been known as the great extinction period – when it is estimated that 90-95% of all life on earth was killed. There have many theories for this, with the main focus on an asteroid (much bigger than the dinosaur killer) hit. Some suspect the remains of this is a crater off NW Australia. Other geologists say this could have triggered the release of vast amounts of methane so quickly that it would have literally smothered life. The methane could then have burned to CO2. Other scientists say this & other asteroid hits could have punctured the earths crust & started massive vulcanism. I know you don’t particularly respect the New Scientist Matt but this is an interesting article. I think this article describes the ideas of one of the ‘authors’ of your graph. (Berner) http://www.newscientist.com/article/...xtinction.html You know that I have stated previously (specifically to Biscuitman in a thread a few weeks ago), that I dislike acceptance of supposed data & I like to study the original peer-reviewed work. Could you give me the exact reference from which you got that graph or the individual data lines? Without getting emotional about it I say again that I think you are ignoring many, many other factors in geological time that probably disrupted or blurs this relationship.

14-12-2006, 07:56 PM	#24 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,443	Well,GW wasn't a generally discussed topic at the begining of the year and already we have experts going on and on about it. Seeing as nobody has ever experienced a GW and all we have to go on is the data that keeps on getting regurgitated both for and against,why don't we all slow down for a while? If January/February come in with a bang and a bit lower temperatures than normal,everyone will be obvious by their absence from this GW Topic,thats for sure. At the end of the day,and this decade GW will be seen as whatever certain people wish to see it as. I,myself,see it as a change from the normal.Nature has been doing that on a regular basis over the past 65 years that I have been observing it. In that very short time we have had predictions of GW and new/mini ice ages,if they came,I felt nothing at all. Thats all,a natural change,and nobody can prove otherwise,regardless of data charts and/or Historic files. Giving this latest "imminent world catastrophy"exposure(is that the right word?)will have the sheeple repeating it,(as they snuggle down under their 99 togg duvets waiting for the non existent postperson bringing their benefit payments to take to the non existent postoffices.) So,time to take a deep breath and remain focused on the real problems like Bliar,Lib-Lab-Cons and the real chance that the masses are actually stirring from their sleep. What would we do if the sheeple awoke,and all turned ugly and insisted on being educated,educated,educated? (About everything except freekin' GW.)

14-12-2006, 09:33 PM	#26 (permalink)
Lazyguy Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 395	Why don't we drill a bunch of holes in the ground? Sorry, I forgot, saving humanity like this would ruin the whole world! We must tax ourselves for even thinking about this atrocity!