Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
Post Reply
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Alexis »

TEMPERATURE

- Here is measured average temperature of the lower atmosphere during the last 30 years period:

Image

- Here is the global mean land-ocean temperature during the last 130 years period:

Image

- And here is the global temperature average during the last 2,000 years period:

Image
(several curves result from usage of several different climate proxies)

- For further consideration, here is the cumulative mean glassier thickness change during the last 60 years:

Image




CARBON DIOXIDE

- Here is the measured concentration of carbon dioxide during the last 50 years period:

Image

- And here is reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations during the last 400,000 years period:

Image




GLOBAL HUMAN CARBON EMISSIONS

- Here are yearly human carbon emissions during the last 200 years period:

Image

- Short "very rough" back-of-the-enveloppe calculations:
>>>Total human carbon non-biomass emissions during the last 200 years add up to circa 380 billions tons of carbon (from above graph)
>>>Which amounts to about 1,400 billions tons of carbon dioxide
>>>Translating in turn into circa 0.027% of the 5.15 E18 kg mass of the atmosphere
>>>Given carbon dioxide molecular weight above mean atmospheric weight, this finally translates into about 180 ppmv, to be compared with measured increase of about 110 ppmv during same period




:arrow: Very Short Summary Of Facts

1. Global average temperature during the last two centuries has increased about 0.8 °C above reconstructed averages of the last 2,000 years, which is a larger and quicker increase than e.g. the Medieval Warm Period. The bulk of this increase occurred during the last century
2. Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during the last two centuries has increased more than 30%, puting it significantly higher than at any time during the last 400,000 years. The bulk of this increase occurred during the last century
3. Human non-biomass carbon emissions during the last two centuries have the right value to explain carbon dioxide concentration increase occurring during the same period, given the existence of various carbon "sinks" absorbing part of carbon emissions resulting from human industrial activity. The bulk of this increase occurred during the last century

We have three phenomenons which are correlated by their periods, correlated by their values, correlated in being outside of millenia-old norms, which finally are logically correlated. The simplest and most natural explanation is the following:

During the last two centuries, industrial activity emitted large amounts of fossil carbon, resulting in carbon dioxide concentration increase above anything within the last 400,000 years, resulting in global average temperature increase unprecedented within the last 2,000 years

:?: Does anybody have another competing explanation for those facts?
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27399
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Alexis wrote: . . .

:?: Does anybody have another competing explanation for those facts?
Yes. One should not

1/ confuse indirect proxy reconstructions of temperature with facts [direct temperature measurements];

2/ mix indirect proxy reconstructions of temperature with direct temperature measurements and then use an arbitrary offset to make the two completely different data sets meet at a point in time; and

[re: "hide the decline"]

3/ mix indirect proxy reconstructions of CO2 with direct CO2 measurements and then use an arbitrary offset to make the two completely different data sets meet at a point in time.

A general point: just because one can plot it does not mean that it is correct - the devil is always in the details and underlying [often hidden] assumptions.

Over a geologic time scale, there is little correlation, if any, between temperature and CO2 levels:

Image
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Simple Minded

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Alexis wrote:
:arrow: Very Short Summary Of Facts (Facts? :lol: :lol: :lol: )

1. Global average temperature during the last two centuries has increased about 0.8 °C above reconstructed averages of the last 2,000 years, which is a larger and quicker increase than e.g. the Medieval Warm Period. The bulk of this increase occurred during the last century
2. Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during the last two centuries has increased more than 30%, puting it significantly higher than at any time during the last 400,000 years. The bulk of this increase occurred during the last century
3. Human non-biomass carbon emissions during the last two centuries have the right value to explain carbon dioxide concentration increase occurring during the same period, given the existence of various carbon "sinks" absorbing part of carbon emissions resulting from human industrial activity. The bulk of this increase occurred during the last century

We have three phenomenons which are correlated by their periods, correlated by their values, correlated in being outside of millenia-old norms, which finally are logically correlated. The simplest and most natural explanation is the following:

During the last two centuries, industrial activity emitted large amounts of fossil carbon, resulting in carbon dioxide concentration increase above anything within the last 400,000 years, resulting in global average temperature increase unprecedented within the last 2,000 years

:?: Does anybody have another competing explanation for those facts? (There is that funny word again... :lol: :lol: )
Unfortunately, there is the thing called a least count, that people often ignore, but is very important. Anyone who thinks man has been able to measure the temperature of the Earth within even +/- 2 degrees Celcius over the last 50 years...... I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell ya..... real cheap!

Same with glaciers and the ice caps, I got two bridges in NYC I'll sell ya.

Then there is the well know effect of changing the scale of the graph to make insignificant changes in data (changes that are well within the error of measurement), seem significant, dramatic, or even Apocalyptic!!

Measurement technology..... doesn't that change with time.... more than what is being measured.......... nuff said. Don't get me started on tree rings, I will laugh so hard I'll pee myself.

Back when I was in High School in the 1970s.... All the experts agreed, we were on the verge of a coming Ice Age, mass stravation would hit within 15-20 years due to the farm land getting covered with ice. They had more facts & data than you could shake a stick at too.....

Rachel Carson, Paul Erlich, Y2K, anyone? Bueller......Bueller....... Bueller......

Manic, hysterical beliefs, and people herding like lemmings says more about human nature and social mood than it does about technology or the phenomena that is measured. Emotions are not data. No matter how many people agree with you.

When I got up this am, it was forty degrees... couple hours later it was sixty degrees..... thought for sure the oceans would boil off by sundown.... for a few years there, it looked like I was gonna be about 20 feet tall by age 30....
noddy
Posts: 11337
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by noddy »

i think the really curly part of all this is not so much the c02/warming argument actually, its the politics.

so many agendas in play, so many ways to take power and money from "required changes" ... so few examples of western rhetoric around freedom and individual motivation.

we get the green/left alliances who want all sorts of centralised control and can only talk of this in terms of more taxes and restrictions and have utter contempt for any suggestion that we might do the right thing if given the room to move on our own steam.. half the crap they rant on about is actually enforced upon us with legislation eg: housing & transport & food production.

we get right/corporate alliances with complete denial of existing environmental problems eg: salinity/deforestation/aquifer degradation are far bigger and more real problems in my country RIGHT NOW and dont get anywhere near the airtime.

its one thing to say their is environmental problems, its quite another to then claim the only solution is to give all the money and power to people that will abuse it and have many more agendas than just c02 production.

if you want the likes of me to get on board with this you would tackle the rules and taxes that inhibit my ability to live cleanly, the current approach of MORE rules and taxes is going to keep me on the "anti" side no matter what, im not giving more of my freedom away because i have precious little of it left anyway.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Has anyone ever seen a chart of Al Gore's networth over the last 30 years?

Or government grants given to institutions promoting climate change/AGW?

I'll bet ya those are hockey stick graphs that would explain a lot.......
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27399
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Simple Minded wrote: . . .

Or government grants given to institutions promoting climate change/AGW?

I'll bet ya those are hockey stick graphs that would explain a lot.......
Take one year from the chart below

Image

and multiply.

Also Big Oil, so-called, donates order of magnitude more money to NGOs such as the Sierra Club and the like than to any skeptics.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
~ Upton Sinclair
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27399
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Alexis wrote:
- Here is the global mean land-ocean temperature during the last 130 years period:

Image
Oh?

Land:

the number and quality of measuring stations has fluctuated wildly over time

that location of thermometers are highly correlated with the location of populations which have grown dramatically over time

UHI: urban heat island effects over time are underestimated and the corrections to such data are remarkably arbitrary

extrapolating temperature over long distances between sparse measuring stations is a fundamentally flawed method

allowing temperature to float at actual measurement sites - deviate from the actual observations - called homogenization is also a fundamentally flawed method

Ocean:

instrumentation of the ocean with measurement buoys -the ARGO project - was started in ~ 2000 and completed in 2007

Image

any measurements of average ocean temperature before then is speculation based on too few measurements with different inhomogeneous methods

Space:

only satellites provide uniform global coverage and such data has only been available since 1979.

_____

If someone claims that global temperature was measured in 1890 to +/- 0.1 C, they are either totally deluding themselves or simply bullsh*tting.
_____

The point is that just because one can construct a plot, that does not mean that it is accurate and meaningful.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Simple Minded

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Typhoon, thanks for re-posting a great quote. One could substitute "faith" or "peer group" for "salary" and it would be equally true.

"Facts?...Facts? We don't need no stinkin facts!"

But just for the hell of it:
http://www.iceagenow.com/

Robert,
Your recent posts showing the media trying to blame this winter's cold on global warming reminds me of George Orwell's book 1984, where it was said to be desirable to have the ability to accept whatever "truth" the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be.
Orwell described it as "...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this.
It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary."
Best regards and thanks for an informative website.

Bill Draeger


One of the most fascinating aspects about the recent AGW hysteria, IMO, was that no one I knew who had any "common sense" or anyone who ever worked outside, bought into it for even a minute. People with enough sense to paint the west side of their house in the morning, and the east side in the evening on a summer day, "somehow" just "got it."

Those who were raised in air conditioning by parents who desired that their children never get their hands dirty earning a living, for some strange reason......... bought it hook, line, and sinker. Social mood? Herding? Irresponsible parents?

AGW reminded me of 5/5/05, which reminded me of Y2K, which reminded me of Silent Spring, which reminded me of Population Time Bomb, which reminded me of The Coming Ice Age...... which reminds of the current Racism Issue/Debt Issue..... which reminds me of self-loathing individuals wallowing in some weird collective guilt sauna.... Second Handers.... as long as they ain't alone in their perspective.... they are certain they are correct.

Maybe it is a function of age, after you live thru a dozen or so zeitgeist changes where "highly respected (publicized, is that the same thing?) experts" are predicting either iminent Armageddon or the Age of Aquarius, you start to think "here we go again, 10 years from now they will be predicting the opposite..... and the same herd will believe the exact opposite with equal fervor.... and adjust accordingly...."
Simple Minded

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Reminds me of an incident I witnessed at an Animal Shelter. 5 or 6 employees were sitting at a picnic table, in the sun on a 90 degree day complaining of how hot it was.

There was shade less than 10 feet away from the picnic table. Never occurred to them to move the picnic table into the shade.

I remember thinking "the dogs you are watching are smart enough to go lie in the shade, but you guys......" So I didn't say anything. :) Sometimes, if you let people be stupid long enough, they tire of the pain ;) ..... sometimes not! :lol:

Beware of consensus, crowds can't think. Only individuals can think.

Ties in well with Juggernaut's & Enki's posts of people in a crowd feeling powerful....and succumbing to group emotion. The trouble is they never seem very aware of when they are being stupid.... or just plain wrong.

No wonder politiicans would rather herd cows than cats.
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Carbizene »

I look forward to hearing what you guys have to say when the 1.3 tera tonnes of Methane has finished evacuating from beneath the East Siberian sea.
Simple Minded

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Carbizene wrote:I look forward to hearing what you guys have to say when the 1.3 tera tonnes of Methane has finished evacuating from beneath the East Siberian sea.
If that was really a threat, should we not be funding and deploying Armies of rednecks on snowmobiles, and Navies of rednecks on personal watercraft, all armed with flareguns and lighters right genuflecting now!!!!!!!! ;)

Or if the threat is real, we are gonna look like a bunch of fools for worrying about AGW and SUVs...... talk about fighting the last war and gettin your ass kicked!!! :o :(
Simple Minded

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Carbizene wrote:I look forward to hearing what you guys have to say when the 1.3 tera tonnes of Methane has finished evacuating from beneath the East Siberian sea.
I can't speak for Typhoon... but I'm gonna say:

WHOOF ARTED??

:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Carbizene »

Simple Minded wrote:
Carbizene wrote:I look forward to hearing what you guys have to say when the 1.3 tera tonnes of Methane has finished evacuating from beneath the East Siberian sea.
If that was really a threat, should we not be funding and deploying Armies of rednecks on snowmobiles, and Navies of rednecks on personal watercraft, all armed with flareguns and lighters right genuflecting now!!!!!!!! ;)
I'm looking forward to that possibility, there is some historical evidence of massive ignition so if we are to go out, a send off would be appreciated and you are right in that it makes a Prius look rather pointless.
Simple Minded

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Carbizene wrote:I'm looking forward to that possibility, there is some historical evidence of massive ignition so if we are to go out, a send off would be appreciated and you are right in that it makes a Prius look rather pointless.
Anyone who bought a Prius in hopes of saving the Earth doesn't think mush, must, much in terms of manufacturing or allocation of resources. Probably did impress their non-thinking peers though.......

Ya gotta admit, if mankind ends due to a giant Mama Guyo Earth fart.....

It will pretty much prove God has a great sense of humor..... :lol:

It will make for a whole lot better future reading than just another flood.
Last edited by Simple Minded on Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Simple Minded

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Carbizene wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: If that was really a threat, should we not be funding and deploying Armies of rednecks on snowmobiles, and Navies of rednecks on personal watercraft, all armed with flareguns and lighters right genuflecting now!!!!!!!! ;)
I'm looking forward to that possibility, there is some historical evidence of massive ignition so if we are to go out, a send off would be appreciated and you are right in that it makes a Prius look rather pointless.
Not to worry Carbi, its already being handled....:

Northeastern Siberia is home to many of Russia's "thaw lakes." These lakes can release large stores of methane as global warming melts the frozen ground beneath them (known as yedoma). As shown in the photo above, this methane can rise to the surface of these lakes and is highly flammable.

Evidently, there are at least a few Ruskies who have lit off an SBD under the table cloth at a fancy restaurant to save a great first date from going south....... I was worried we would have to import these guys from the US or OZ......

Merikan Rednecks, snowmobiles, PWC, beer, pork rinds, walky-talkys, and flareguns would make for much better reality TV however......

Sponsorship would be extremely lucrative, Budwieser, Artic Cat, Polaris, Evinrude, Motorola, etc.....
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27399
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Carbizene wrote:I look forward to hearing what you guys have to say when the 1.3 tera tonnes of Methane has finished evacuating from beneath the East Siberian sea.
What the authors of the report that you're constantly misquoting actually wrote:

WCR | Methane Time Bomb in Arctic Seas – Apocalypse Not

Dlugokencky, E. J., et al., 2009.
Observational constraints on recent increases in the atmospheric CH4 burden.
Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18803, doi:10.1029/2009GL039780.

Dmitrenko, I.A., et al., 2011.
Recent changes in the shelf hydrography in the Siberian Arctic: Potential for subsea permafrost instability.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, C10027, doi:10.1029/2001JC007218.

Another way of looking at the same issue: emipirically

Image

Our planet has been far far warmer in the past than today, and the methane would have been released, yet life not only survived but thrived.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Carbizene »

Simple Minded wrote:
Evidently, there are at least a few Ruskies who have lit off an SBD under the table cloth at a fancy restaurant to save a great first date from going south....... I was worried we would have to import these guys from the US or OZ......

Merikan Rednecks, snowmobiles, PWC, beer, pork rinds, walky-talkys, and flareguns would make for much better reality TV however......

Sponsorship would be extremely lucrative, Budwieser, Artic Cat, Polaris, Evinrude, Motorola, etc.....
Rib joints and Korean BBQ's will really flourish, free gas could really power some kick arse burners... "look mum no pipes"

Image

Australian Taxis are run on Natural gas so there would be no problems with a ride home after a boozy evening of Ribs and Gogigui.
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Carbizene »

Typhoon wrote: What the authors of the report that you're constantly misquoting....
The reason I misquote them is that I don't quote them.

I quote the work of Semiletov and Shakhova.

Five years ago Shakhova said that the ESS reserve will erupt at any time, she has been proven correct thus her understanding of the system has been validated. She states that the sub-sea permafrost is melting due to warmer run off water from adjacent rivers.

Our planet has been far far warmer in the past than today, and the methane would have been released, yet life not only survived but thrived.
The polar Ice caps have only been in existance for about 14 million years and therefore the permafrost cap has only existed for a similar time frame, thus earlier periods of warmer Climate are irrelevant to the current scenario.

At the moment water is gushing down through the cracked permafrost simultaneously as Gas escapes upwards, things get really interesting when water hits the Clathrates in the Caverns as the amount of free Gas contained in the Caverns is genuflect all in comparison to that contained in the Clathrates.

When all the gas is evacuated the Caverns will be filled entirely with water and currently unexposed Clathrates will be vaporised like a Oxy welder through Styrene.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27399
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Carbizene wrote:
Typhoon wrote: What the authors of the report that you're constantly misquoting....
The reason I misquote them is that I don't quote them.

I quote the work of Semiletov and Shakhova.

Five years ago Shakhova said that the ESS reserve will erupt at any time, she has been proven correct thus her understanding of the system has been validated. She states that the sub-sea permafrost is melting due to warmer run off water from adjacent rivers.

Our planet has been far far warmer in the past than today, and the methane would have been released, yet life not only survived but thrived.
The polar Ice caps have only been in existance for about 14 million years and therefore the permafrost cap has only existed for a similar time frame, thus earlier periods of warmer Climate are irrelevant to the current scenario.

At the moment water is gushing down through the cracked permafrost simultaneously as Gas escapes upwards, things get really interesting when water hits the Clathrates in the Caverns as the amount of free Gas contained in the Caverns is genuflect all in comparison to that contained in the Clathrates.

When all the gas is evacuated the Caverns will be filled entirely with water and currently unexposed Clathrates will be vaporised like a Oxy welder through Styrene.
That's some rather exciting doomer porn.

However, the S + S claim is controversial in the field

Leaders of Arctic Methane Project Clarify Climate Concerns
Igor Dmitrenko, whose paper is cited above, disputes the interpretation of his work by Semiletov and Shakhova. He sent this comment, starting with a quote from their statement:

“The model in the Dmitrenko paper [link] assumed a thaw point of zero degrees. Our observations show that the cornerstone assumption taken in their modeling was wrong. The rate at which the subsea permafrost is currently degrading largely depends on what state it was in when recent climate change appeared. It makes sense that modeling on an incorrect assumption about thaw point could create inaccurate results.”

This assessment of the model we used is completely wrong! The model takes into account that water can remain unfrozen at temperature below 0 degrees – “…the simulated temperature of sediments down to 25 m is below 0°C (dark blue line in Figure 6). Note that the sediments can still remain unfrozen because of the salt contamination”, page 7, right column, first paragraph.

This comment by Dr. Semiletov clearly demonstrates that he even didn’t carefully read our paper. Figure 6 shows simulated temperature profiles below the seafloor as a function of depth with unfrozen sediments at temperature below 0°C in the upper 30 m layer.
S + S -> GIGO

Revkin gets it right this time:
Shakhova and Semiletov, whose earlier analysis of methane in the region was published in Science last year, had been unavailable for comment when I was preparing my piece, as they had gone on vacation shortly after their presentation. When they were back on the grid they got my e-mail inquiries and saw the post. Their response clarifies their differences with other research groups and emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating scientific findings before rushing to conclusions, either alarming or reassuring. One clear message, which I endorse, is the need to sustain the kind of fieldwork they’re doing.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Carbizene »

The proposal that the ESS Methane eruptions that began last year are a result of an event 8000 years ago is so stupid as to be laughable.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27399
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Carbizene wrote:The proposal that the ESS Methane eruptions that began last year are a result of an event 8000 years ago is so stupid as to be laughable.
Indeed. Given that methane eruptions did not "begin" last year.

So you are not doing yourself any favours by making such claims.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Carbizene »

Typhoon wrote: Indeed. Given that methane eruptions did not "begin" last year.
Utter rubbish, there were no kilometer wide geysers of Methane seen in the region before last year.
noddy
Posts: 11337
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by noddy »

given that the world has slowly and surely been losing carbon dioxide over the millenia and it used to be a much more fertile place that supported huge forests and mega fauna and is now slowly becoming more and more deserts, just what exactly is the long term problem with more c02?

australia, africa and the main continent are all arid wastelands compared to the fossil records and all the plant life on this planet is c02 limited and water limited.

im being deadly serious, i understand the rapid short term change will leave us and many other species "in the wrong spot" and our farms and cities will suffer for it but once that settles down, wont the world be a better place ?

what exactly is the scientific proof that its a good thing to allow the c02 to be lost permenantly and furthur de-fertilize the backbone of our existance which is the photosynthetic plants that use it to trap sunlight energy and produce oxygen ?
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27399
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Carbizene wrote:
Typhoon wrote: Indeed. Given that methane eruptions did not "begin" last year.
Utter rubbish, there were no kilometer wide geysers of Methane seen in the region before last year.
Any day now . . .
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Carbizene »

noddy wrote:given that the world has slowly and surely been losing carbon dioxide over the millenia and it used to be a much more fertile place that supported huge forests and mega fauna and is now slowly becoming more and more deserts, just what exactly is the long term problem with more c02?

australia, africa and the main continent are all arid wastelands compared to the fossil records and all the plant life on this planet is c02 limited and water limited.

im being deadly serious, i understand the rapid short term change will leave us and many other species "in the wrong spot" and our farms and cities will suffer for it but once that settles down, wont the world be a better place ?

what exactly is the scientific proof that its a good thing to allow the c02 to be lost permenantly and furthur de-fertilize the backbone of our existance which is the photosynthetic plants that use it to trap sunlight energy and produce oxygen ?
I had a debate with James Hansen, the chief Climate scientist of NASA over the process of Isostatic rebound, my proposal was that it can accelerate, his that it's rate is static, my proposal has been proven correct. The validity of my proposal has devastating consequences as when the Ronne and Ross Ice shelves break away from Antarctica 30 exatons of Ice will just fall off meaning an incredible bout of accelerating Isostatic rebound. I think due to relativity the Lithosphere will be destabilised to such an extent it will invert leaving the Planet a molten ball.
Post Reply