New Category suggestion. Climate change.

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Quantum Quack, Oct 16, 2018.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    UM
    Sea-level falls are associated with most of the mass extinctions, including all of the "Big Five"—End-Ordovician, Late Devonian, End-Permian, End-Triassic, and End-Cretaceous.

    sea level falls = ice = cold and dry

    Sixth?

    Science always needs consensus?

    as/re: science is not qualified
    "science" is not a disembodied entity ---it is just an ordered way of looking at things
    scientists are humans with all that that brings to the table

    many "scientific consensuses" have gone aft agley
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,997
    Yep, it has been named the Holocene extinction and is currently in progress.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

    Shall we take this concensus scientific information to heed or ignore it as "speculative"? Is there any law that says only an ice-age or falling sea levels qualify as extinction events?

    In this case global warming and the resulting polar ice-melt and rise in ocean levels may well be causal to the extinction of a large portion of land dwelling organisms, especially along the coastal areas, with disasterous secondary domino effects both on land and in the oceans.

    Some current statistics on human activity this year (5 months). Read them and weep.
    https://www.worldometers.info/

    How long can the earth's eco-system deal with this onslaught?
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,507
    You got all that from my pithy little demo of what the range to which Sculptor referred might stand for?
    Amazing power of deduction.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,997
    It is your attempt to discredit the urgency of the problem that will get us all killed.

    Capping the well after someone drowns is not going to work when dealing with global disasters.
    When a certain treshold has been breached, there is nothing that can be done to reverse a global process.

    The whole point is to stay on this side of the runaway process and that requires the most pessimistic assumption and early preventive measures and changes in human behavior.
    There is no room for error.

    So let's see if humans have free will or are doomed to submit to natural deterministic penalties for our wanton unnatural behavior and lack of stewardship of mother earth's abundant benign resources and potentials.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    Gee
    thanx for the
    doom and gloom

    as/re
    There is no room for error.

    eeeeeeeeekkkk oh---noooooooooooooooo
    you do realize that we are intrinsically talking about human beings here?

    "to err is human"

    (irish language lesson: Whale oil beef hooked----said rapidly alltogether)
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,997
    That's what I am afraid of. Human error will get us all killed.

    Do you have any more optimistic scenarios? It'll just go away by itself? Human will devolve over a few centuries to return to being an aquatic mammal or adapt to a high CO2 content atmosphere, only to be devoured by insects.

    Have you watched the Hellstrom Chronicle? 88% liked this movie (in spite of its age 1971)

     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    The NOAA scientists are 90+% certain that sea level will rise somewhere between 8 inches and 80 inches in the next 80-90 years.
    or between 2 and 20 mm/yr
    considering that recent sea level rise is about 3mm/yr
    I'd say that the low end of their prognostication was a fairly safe bet.

    The rest seems more speculative

    optimistic scenario is largely symbiotic
    The primary producers were here first
    unfortunately, the damned fools kept poisoning the atmosphere with their waste product--oxygen.
    They were most likely choking on their own filth
    and then
    came the wild fires---set off by the tiniest of sparks, they raged across the land, killing the primary producers in their billions
    and then
    we evolved to fill a symbiotic ecological niche
    We consume their waste product, O and give them back CO2 which they appreciate as though it were a gourmet meal.

    So far, we seem to be the best CO2 producers of all our animal cousins
    or
    did you think that that was all just an accident?
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,997
    No, that is evolution and natural selection at work.
    Humans are a result of that evolutionary process, but that does not mean we are no longer subject to extinction, when there is a drastic and rapid change in the biosphere and biology.
     
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    amen to that
    we have dodged many extinction bullets
    recently, circa 70-75 kyrs ago we dodged an extinction bullet when at least 4 volcanoes blew including toba---which may have dropped temperatures another 6 degrees in the middle of a period of glaciation---we may have been down to several hundreds---some geneticist claim as few as 40 breeding pairs--considering that---the survivors have done well.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,997
    Or so it would appear. But have we learned from the experience and are now able to recognize an existential threat when it stares us in the face?

    There is a lot of denial out there in spite of overwhelming evidence.
    Five record setting years and no sign of relief.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    You may be doing yourself a disservice in quoting "climate central" "data".
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,997
    I have no clue as to their reputation.
    But I think that even a HS group could collect a few well known statistics without resorting to misdirection, no?

    I heard similar claims from other sources

    Why would they feel compelled to alter these stats?.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I am curious to see the 2019 stats, to see if it resumes the upward trend.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    misdirection?-------------all human beings are biased---we often make decisions on incomplete data based on our biased assumptions. We may err greatly while thinking that we err not at all.

    meanwhile:
    100% of the energy entering earth's atmosphere comes from the sun

    Cycle 24 was much lower(colder---less energy) than those of the end of the last century. We are/will be leaving cycle 24......most (not all) predictions indicate that # 25 will be less energetic than #24(which was lower than 23 which was lower than 22...etc. ... )

    ghg may limit what is re-radiated into space, but is, of it's nature, a secondary tool, not primary
    less incoming energy should, most likely, lead to lower temperatures as the atmosphere re-radiates out into space the energy stored in and on the earth's surface

    If, indeed, cycle 25 proves to provide less energy, the next decade should be interesting......................?
    It seems that we know very little about the sun's long term(centuries) output............?
     
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,507
    Thermometers are not biased. The human being who can't read one is suffering from something other than natural bias.
    Well, I was given a choice when my cancer was diagnosed with 95% certainty.
    Start treatment immediately, or wait for 100% conclusive diagnosis* I went with the 95%.

    * provided by an autopsy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    thermometers
    USHCN weather stations
    some are located where excess heat (concrete, asphalt, parking lots, air conditioning units. etc...) negates the veracity of their readings
    over 32% of the USHCN stations exhibited an increase in impervious surface(concrete/asphalt) area of ⩾20% between 2001 and 2011.
     
  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,507
    Where people live. Which is a lot of places. And those temps don't count... because?


    And this doesn't contribute to heating?
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    Because they are too localized
    if location x started where it should be--at least 100 feet from any heat source---and now it is in a parking lot next to an air conditioner unit---it can tell you of the effect of the urbanization change at that location-------extrapolating that out to global climate becomes problematic.

    We all know of the urban heat island effect---------
    when urban sprawl encroaches on a USHCN weather station it gives a reading that is not the same as a reading that would show a long term unadulterated change.

    just as in navigation, little errors have a way of adding up
     
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,507
    Okay, then. Don't rely on the data. Don't trust the climate scientists or their methods.
    Go outside and see for yourself.
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    well
    that's a tad rad dad
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,997
    That truth also holds the other way. A bunch of small local contributions, such as smelter smoke stacks or busy freeways do add up to regional or even global instabilities.

    From worldometers;
    12,354,909,809 CO2 emissions this year (tons)!
     

Share This Page