Climate Change
- Thread starter Dr Jon
- Start date
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Anyone can whip up a nice story and stick some links on. Does he have any peer reviewed papers confirming his view? Anything that says we are headed to extinction. Because from what I understand is that up to 10C there will be enough space for humans to survive. I am not arguing for 10 billion living with iPads and SUVs at 10C but that extinction is not on the cards in any peer reviewed sources.
Do you have a peer-revieved source for this?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
complete load of shite
We're the only animal we have any evidence of that has the capability to innovate technologically to anything like the degree we can, so yes we're a special case.
We also have the capacity to be extremely wasteful, which is our current state, but also to then innovate to become extremely efficient in our resources use, which isn't a situation that applies to most other 'overshoot' situations.
We're the only animal we have any evidence of that has the capability to innovate technologically to anything like the degree we can, so yes we're a special case.
We also have the capacity to be extremely wasteful, which is our current state, but also to then innovate to become extremely efficient in our resources use, which isn't a situation that applies to most other 'overshoot' situations.
We were all now supposed to be living in a world where electricity was too cheap to meter, robots did all the work and humans a lived a life of leisure, went on holiday to the Moon, etc.
Don't believe the hype.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Overshoot means you have too large a population to be sustainable not that you are going extinct. Europe before the great famine may be seen as in overshoot, they had no capacity to absorb changes in climate so when the summers turned wetter they starved as there were too many mouths and not enough grain.
Extinction means dropping below a sustainable breeding population. In the early 70s there was a lot of concern about a Venus runaway but since then it has not appeared in models. You have to dial up the Polar regions until they get massively hotter than the current tropics. That did not happen in the Paleocene Thermal Optimum. If you cannot show me the model showing that kind of temperature range from the high latitudes in either the paleoclimate or the GCMs then you have nothing to base your extinction claim on.
Its not up to others to show that papers refuting these these temperature ranges exist in paleo or models.
Extinction means dropping below a sustainable breeding population. In the early 70s there was a lot of concern about a Venus runaway but since then it has not appeared in models. You have to dial up the Polar regions until they get massively hotter than the current tropics. That did not happen in the Paleocene Thermal Optimum. If you cannot show me the model showing that kind of temperature range from the high latitudes in either the paleoclimate or the GCMs then you have nothing to base your extinction claim on.
Its not up to others to show that papers refuting these these temperature ranges exist in paleo or models.
Last edited:
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I don't, which is why I don't fall for this sort of illconceived bollocks.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
As people have managed to survive for millenia living in all sorts of extreme environments from the sahara desert to the arctic, I really can't see any possible way in which climate change even of the realistic maximum 6-8 degrees indicated by the historic record could ever result in the complete extinction of the human race.
It almost certainly would result in large areas of the planet becoming uninhabitable, but by no means all of it, with huge areas that are currently uninhabitable likely to become much more suitable for living on - eg the siberian tundra, alaska etc.
Climate change is on track to be a huge slow burning global catastrophy, but talking of it as being a significant extinction risk for the human race itself frankly only serves to discredit the person making that point, and unfortunately the wider scientific community and ideas they are identified with - ie it serves to discredit mainstream climate science in the same way that previous stupid predictions have done.
It almost certainly would result in large areas of the planet becoming uninhabitable, but by no means all of it, with huge areas that are currently uninhabitable likely to become much more suitable for living on - eg the siberian tundra, alaska etc.
National history museum
Climate change is on track to be a huge slow burning global catastrophy, but talking of it as being a significant extinction risk for the human race itself frankly only serves to discredit the person making that point, and unfortunately the wider scientific community and ideas they are identified with - ie it serves to discredit mainstream climate science in the same way that previous stupid predictions have done.
Tankus
Amused OAP
http://www.principia-scientific.org...as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html
Great hockey sticks .... Batmann
Great hockey sticks .... Batmann
Last edited:
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Jesus do you swim with human sewage or what! That lot effectively deny the existence of a greenhouse effect. They are pretty much banned from WUWT for being weapon grade stupid. You got any tit bits from answersingenesis.org?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Or to take a Denialist's view on it: That story is pure shit.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/...aught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/#more-103640
When even the echo chamber says it's wrong you might want to consider that it might, just, perhaps, be incorrect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/...aught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/#more-103640
When even the echo chamber says it's wrong you might want to consider that it might, just, perhaps, be incorrect.
Last edited:
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Worshippers of Thor.
Left
aimless
Come out with it, what is your position? Is it:
1. Climate change is not occurring
2. Climate change is occurring but not caused by humans
3. Something else
Very few denialists seem to pick one of those and stick with it, they switch positions depending on what's most convenient.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
I know this is a huge detour, but I'm struggling to find a clear explanation of where the carbon was on the early earth and the processes whereby it ended up in the biosphere.
Tankus
Amused OAP
climate change
Climate change has always happened and will continue to do so with or without out us .....
free spirit
more tea vicar?
the air mostly, then absorbed by plants, then over millions of years (hundreds of millions of years) much of that plant meterial decomposed, formed into peat, or similar, then was either sucked into the earth at techtonic faults, or buried by volcanic eruptions, or similar to form pockets of fossil fuels deep beneath the ground.
We're now intent on reversing this process and taking this carbon from these deep geological carbon sinks, then adding it back into the active carbon cycle.
Andrew Hertford
Chocolate Jesus
Well of course, but man made CO2 emissions are currently tipping the balance towards dangerous warming. It's difficult to see how anyone could dispute that.
Left
aimless
So do you deny the greenhouse effect? Do you believe in the laws of thermodynamics?
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
I meant even earlier - when it was a ball of volcanic nastiness - were there carbide minerals ?
Or was it all in the form of CO2 and CO in the unbreathable atmosphere ?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
erm pass.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
In terms of the early Earth, going back past the Cambrian and into deep deep time: it was in the atmosphere and badly needed.
We needed a huge greenhouse effect to keep the Earth warm enough for liquid water. But this was a precarious existence as twice something drew down too much CO2 and hence the Huronian and the Cryogenian ice ages. The balance is in part kept by rock weathering. The warmer it is the more it rains the more CO2 forms carbonic acid and reacts with rock to weather it and become sequestered in the ocean floor as calcium carbonate.
When the earth became covered in ice the rock weathering stopped and the slow build up (we are talking tens-hundred millions of years) of CO2 got to the point where it could over come a white albedo all the way to near the equator and you got huge weathering and thick layers of calcium carbonate called cap carbonate
This is a picture by Paul Hoffman who is credited with most of the work on Snowball Earth (Budyko a famous Soviet climate modeller had indicated this was possible in around 69, his work inspired the work on nuclear winter).
We know there has been water on the Earth for nearly 4 billion years, whether a CO2/CH4 greenhouse world was enough to keep the Earth with liquid water back into the deepest of time, we still dont know. Lots and lots of questions. But after the Cambrian explosion biology began playing its part sequestering CO2, but over 10s of millions of years, rock weathering\vulcanisity is still the dominant mechanism. The rise of rooting plants on earth may have helped trigger an ice age by making more rock available for weathering and during hyperthermals the ocean become euxenic so there is little break down of dead biomatter on the ocean surface, this is now thought to act as a mechanism for carbon sequestering during hyperthermals that helps bring the CO2 back in balance. But when some of that biomatter is buried it gets deep enough that the kerogen (basically loads of dead stuff) get heated and cracked into shorter chain hydrocrabons such as bitumen, crude oil and eventually gasses like methane. When these migrate through the rock and become trapped in geological features like you get.....
4.5 billion years so there is some skipping over various details.
We needed a huge greenhouse effect to keep the Earth warm enough for liquid water. But this was a precarious existence as twice something drew down too much CO2 and hence the Huronian and the Cryogenian ice ages. The balance is in part kept by rock weathering. The warmer it is the more it rains the more CO2 forms carbonic acid and reacts with rock to weather it and become sequestered in the ocean floor as calcium carbonate.
When the earth became covered in ice the rock weathering stopped and the slow build up (we are talking tens-hundred millions of years) of CO2 got to the point where it could over come a white albedo all the way to near the equator and you got huge weathering and thick layers of calcium carbonate called cap carbonate
This is a picture by Paul Hoffman who is credited with most of the work on Snowball Earth (Budyko a famous Soviet climate modeller had indicated this was possible in around 69, his work inspired the work on nuclear winter).
We know there has been water on the Earth for nearly 4 billion years, whether a CO2/CH4 greenhouse world was enough to keep the Earth with liquid water back into the deepest of time, we still dont know. Lots and lots of questions. But after the Cambrian explosion biology began playing its part sequestering CO2, but over 10s of millions of years, rock weathering\vulcanisity is still the dominant mechanism. The rise of rooting plants on earth may have helped trigger an ice age by making more rock available for weathering and during hyperthermals the ocean become euxenic so there is little break down of dead biomatter on the ocean surface, this is now thought to act as a mechanism for carbon sequestering during hyperthermals that helps bring the CO2 back in balance. But when some of that biomatter is buried it gets deep enough that the kerogen (basically loads of dead stuff) get heated and cracked into shorter chain hydrocrabons such as bitumen, crude oil and eventually gasses like methane. When these migrate through the rock and become trapped in geological features like you get.....
4.5 billion years so there is some skipping over various details.
The sun significantly being dimmer is only a hypothesis. Also worthy of note is that the Moon was a fuck of a lot closer which meant that the day (rotation period of the Earth) was much shorter and tides were much higher and the Moon was possibly close enough to induce noticeable tides in the crust itself, possibly encouraging volcanism and thus release of CO2.
Then there is the Late Heavy Bombardment when lots of comets hit the Earth, bringing water and methane ices.
Unfortunately, very little is known about the Hadean eon.
Then there is the Late Heavy Bombardment when lots of comets hit the Earth, bringing water and methane ices.
Unfortunately, very little is known about the Hadean eon.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Away and dont talk pish.
Basic stellar evolution tells us that stars get brighter as they age. Multiple lines of evidence over millions of catalogued stars, it is a function of the density* of the core.
As a main sequence star burns hydrogen to helium, the helium is more dense so the density of the core increases, increasing the burn rate of the star.
Last edited:
Hence the word significantly. I also forbore from mentioning that the Earth may have been closer to the Sun.
Actually, I should have used insolation instead.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Planetary migration is extremely unlikely to have had a big impact from around 3.5 billion years ago to 0.5 billion when the Cambrian Radiation got underway.
Similar threads
