We Remember The Magic Caf We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Study shakes foundation of climate theory! (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
I'm only going to post this link for everyone so inclined to read for themselves you can and will come to your own conclusions,I hope. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3718
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Their site is down. Do you have a reference for the study so that I can look elsewhere?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
The site is up again. The release on the site doesn't say much. Apparently this one study claims that an important historical warming period is only imperfectly explained by some (unnamed) current models.

Here's the actual abstract of the article:
Quote:
The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50permil. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.


Hard to see that this has any direct relevance to climate theory in general.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
I’m glade you took the time to read all the links I provide and came to your own conclusion.

For me it clearly shows that Co2 did not have anything to do with global warming in the past and is not likely the cause of it now.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
Doug Higley
View Profile
V.I.P.
Here and There
7165 Posts

Profile of Doug Higley
Oh that darn Mr. Sun...so sneaky...I mean he's the epitome of stealth...why just today for some 'unknown' reason the temperature outside has risen over 10 degrees!

I think I'll build a Pyramid in Drumheller in it's honor...what do ya say John? Aboard?
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
Doug,

To think you just pinpointed the most likely cause of global warming. Of course it’s the one that they haven’t figured out to a way to profit from or gain political control with, nothing like selling carbon credits.

Tom
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Doug, let's build the Drumheller pyramid here
Image


Tom, the abstract I quoted is quite noncommittal: note the words "possible" and "may" in the first sentence.

If the article is correct about the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum AND it is right that current models do not completely predict (retrodict) what happened AND it is right that the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum is analogous to today, what follows?

Well not much really. It would follow that we have much more to learn about what is driving current climate change. But it wouldn't follow that human-produced carbon is irrelevant. In fact it would support the position that human activity is still largely responsible. They mystery would involve finding out what the other factors are and whether we have any hand in them. And those, of course, would still be open questions.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20972 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
A large contingint of German scientists just dissented. The theory is looking pretty slim.

I think the best thing that can be said for the theory is it will raise awareness about the planet. Warming or not we need to take care of it as we only have one of them to go arround! So I think that it is a good thing to be more aware of HOW we do impact it. I think it is a discussion worth having.

THAT is where I stand at least.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Doug Higley
View Profile
V.I.P.
Here and There
7165 Posts

Profile of Doug Higley
Hoo Doos!
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
To which theory do you dissent Danny?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
nums
View Profile
Veteran user
I have a life, or I would have more than
366 Posts

Profile of nums
Quote:
On 2009-08-04 20:06, Dannydoyle wrote:
Warming or not we need to take care of it as we only have one of them to go arround! So I think that it is a good thing to be more aware of HOW we do impact it. I think it is a discussion worth having.

THAT is where I stand at least.


While I appreciate the jist of your statement, Man has little to do with this planets temp. Some humans would like to think that we are that powerful. We do not even populate but a VERY small portion of this earth. In fact if you took the 6 billion or so people on this earth and put them in Texas, there would be as many people per square mile as there are in NYC. With the whole rest of the world open.


We should take better care of our home much like we should take better care of our bodies, I just do need the goverment telling what is best for either one.

NUMS
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Tom, stop messin' with Johns religion.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20972 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2009-08-04 22:50, nums wrote:
Quote:
On 2009-08-04 20:06, Dannydoyle wrote:
Warming or not we need to take care of it as we only have one of them to go arround! So I think that it is a good thing to be more aware of HOW we do impact it. I think it is a discussion worth having.

THAT is where I stand at least.


While I appreciate the jist of your statement, Man has little to do with this planets temp. Some humans would like to think that we are that powerful. We do not even populate but a VERY small portion of this earth. In fact if you took the 6 billion or so people on this earth and put them in Texas, there would be as many people per square mile as there are in NYC. With the whole rest of the world open.


We should take better care of our home much like we should take better care of our bodies, I just do need the goverment telling what is best for either one.

NUMS


I think global temp in general is the wrong "boogyman" to use.

I automatically am put off by any growth of government. I just wish each side would quit using misrepresentation, hyperbole, hysteria and outright lies to make the points. I bet we could get a lot further that way.

I also am skeptical of the "doomsday" scenarios that are put forth. I mean we have passed several deadlines, nothing has happened. Heck one promised England would not exist past 2000 and despite the insistance of England to exist they still don't back up!
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4570 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2009-08-04 22:50, nums wrote:

While I appreciate the gist of your statement, Man has little to do with this planets temp. Some humans would like to think that we are that powerful. We do not even populate but a VERY small portion of this earth. In fact if you took the 6 billion or so people on this earth and put them in Texas, there would be as many people per square mile as there are in NYC. With the whole rest of the world open.



And this logic negates the theory of man made global warming how?

It only takes seven grams of cyanide to kill a human. Seven grams is a very small portion of your overall body weight. So a small amount of something can have a huge impact on something else.

Plus your analogy is poor. Yes we could cram the worlds population into a very small area, even smaller than Texas if you used a population density more like Hong Kong's or Calcutta's. However this population would soon die out as it hasn't the infrastructure required to support it. You're failing to take into account the amount of land each person requires for crop growth, energy production and waste disposal. These would take a much larger amount of land and perhaps have a huge impact on the environment.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20972 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Payne is of course speaking of the "caring capacity" of the planet. And he is right, if you cram people into places it would indeed really be a serious strain on the earth.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
nums
View Profile
Veteran user
I have a life, or I would have more than
366 Posts

Profile of nums
Quote:
On 2009-08-05 02:38, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2009-08-04 22:50, nums wrote:

While I appreciate the gist of your statement, Man has little to do with this planets temp. Some humans would like to think that we are that powerful. We do not even populate but a VERY small portion of this earth. In fact if you took the 6 billion or so people on this earth and put them in Texas, there would be as many people per square mile as there are in NYC. With the whole rest of the world open.



And this logic negates the theory of man made global warming how?

It only takes seven grams of cyanide to kill a human. Seven grams is a very small portion of your overall body weight. So a small amount of something can have a huge impact on something else.

Plus your analogy is poor. Yes we could cram the worlds population into a very small area, even smaller than Texas if you used a population density more like Hong Kong's or Calcutta's. However this population would soon die out as it hasn't the infrastructure required to support it. You're failing to take into account the amount of land each person requires for crop growth, energy production and waste disposal. These would take a much larger amount of land and perhaps have a huge impact on the environment.


You can stab someone to death with a pencil, what does a fragile human body have to do with the earth?

The population point has to do with how large the world is as a whole, I was not trying to say that life could be sustained uder those conditions.

There is a general concensus that there was an iceage millions of years ago yet even without man the earth got warmer and some of the ice melted. Tempature change happens.

NUMS
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
I would think that a person's level of certainty should be proportional to his or her knowledge of the subject matter.

Curious.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4570 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2009-08-05 21:57, nums wrote:

You can stab someone to death with a pencil, what does a fragile human body have to do with the earth?



Just trying to show that something small can, and does have a huge impact on a much larger enviroment. Just because some believe that human activity is too insignificant compared to the scope of the world at large doesn't mean it isn't necessarily so. Just as a minute amount of poison can kill a person, so too could a small amount of human activity have major ramifications to the earths environment. After all we are releasing several million years worth of stored carbon back into the earths atmosphere in a matter of a few decades.

Quote:

There is a general concensus that there was an iceage millions of years ago yet even without man the earth got warmer and some of the ice melted. Tempature change happens.



The previous great ice age ended for a variety of reasons. The rise of the Isthmus of Panama, change in both the earths orbit and tilt and increased solar activity.
So far as we know no events of these magnitudes have transpired to explain the sudden climate change.

Besides even if the global warming isn't man made many of the things they are suggesting we do are a benefit to the planet and humanity as a whole. We need a reason to get off of hydrocarbons and shift to a renewable energy stream as the oil isn't going to last forever and it takes a long, long time to make more.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Yeah....and it is all the US' fault, that is why all manufacturing should be in China and India, they have old cultures that are good and thus don't pollute.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Study shakes foundation of climate theory! (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL