This was an eye opener - cont.

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428131#post15428131 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
It is very interesting that you bring this up. Actually, we can't map asteroid paths very well. Part of the reason for this is that systems of more than two gravitational bodies are chaotic systems! Besides the massive asteroid impacts before human history, there has been a fairly significant meteroid/asteroid impact in Taguska(sp?), Russia back in the 50's I think. Not enough to cause major climate change, but still pretty significant.

Scott

lol....i kinda walked into that one. lol theirs more of the chaos in modeling....which i unserstand but still feel is a bit hopeful because the majority of graphs point up...i thin i and a few others have already brought this up, to which you responded, well yes it goes up, but who is to say how up it will go and at what rate?

and to that i say i have to agree with the scientist........and the mean averages of cliamate models...i have yet to find such a graph...but when i do....i will post it....

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428138#post15428138 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
what reputable scientific organisation believes that global warming isn't real or wont be as bad as nas(who's website is flippy for me) and the AAAS believe it will be, and why you go against the majority of scientist"

scooter this is a direct quote from my comment a few posts back, this is what i feel has yet to be answered.....thanks

I wouldn't know the answer to the first part of that question. I never claimed that global warming doesn't exist.

I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "as bad as the NAS believes it will be". If you look through the scientific papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, there is a spectrum of thoughts on the subject. I posted several articles from the PNAS that demonstrate some of the differing perspectives.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

yes, i am refering to the main report that shows the three possible outcomes, that were discerned with a team of aconomist, and a whole bunch of other peoples....

i am having difficulties getting on the nas site....any one else having this problem? then again half the sites i try to go on makes my antivirus tell me it is a harmful site...it tells me that for my e-mail for peets sake, i haven't checked my hotmail account in ages.....anyway......

by isn't real...i meant is real, but not as damaging as the nas believe...and that report has the majority of the nas's support.....wish i could find it!

 

[Nihoa]

fellas, take a step back a second from all the nit picking and look at the basics. we know without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere we wouldnt be here and we know that the service these greenhouse gases do is to trap heat and make the planet habitable. there isnt anything fishy about that. now what happens if you add more greenhouse gases to the atmoshpere??? its gonna trap more heat. there isnt anything beyond that to argue. plain and simple.

we know we have contributed greatly to greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere which means we are contributing to warming. significantly.

the system is complicated and when you get into predictions and modelling it can get fuzzy but the very basic science behind it all is 5th grade.

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428138#post15428138 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
what reputable scientific organisation believes that global warming isn't real or wont be as bad as nas(who's website is flippy for me) and the AAAS believe it will be, and why you go against the majority of scientist"

scooter this is a direct quote from my comment a few posts back, this is what i feel has yet to be answered.....thanks

Sorry, I missed the reply to the end of your question.

I am not so sure that I am against the majority of scientists. I am not going to dispute that global warming exists. I am not disputing that there is some contribution by man. Every one of those modeling articles stresses the uncertainty and the unknowns that still exist.

Scott

 

[Dingo44]

Tunguska..... That story makes me have to change my pants. It happened in 1908 in Siberia, Russia. Estimated 5 to 30 megatons. Luckily it exploded over an unpopulated area, it flattened and burned every tree within 830 square miles. Trees to this day still grow away from the crater. If that had happened over a city, or worse yet off the Atlantic seaboard.... I don't even want to think of what would have happened.

It happened before there was any real climate collecting instruments around, but I would guess it didn't have that big of an affect on climate. Considering humans have set off nukes way bigger than that.

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428222#post15428222 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Nihoa
fellas, take a step back a second from all the nit picking and look at the basics. we know without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere we wouldnt be here and we know that the service these greenhouse gases do is to trap heat and make the planet habitable. there isnt anything fishy about that. now what happens if you add more greenhouse gases to the atmoshpere??? its gonna trap more heat. there isnt anything beyond that to argue. plain and simple.

That is a WAY too simplistic view. That isn't necessarily true. There are all kinds of feedback mechanisms (both positive and negative) that really complicate the picture.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

nihoa, i don't think anyone still doubts that globl warming is real, right now we are trying to figure out how to pick which scientist to believe in regards to its effects.....

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428243#post15428243 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
nihoa, i don't think anyone still doubts that globl warming is real, right now we are trying to figure out how to pick which scientist to believe in regards to its effects.....

Thats not what I am doing. I am taking in the spectrum of views and looking at what they say. To me they say "There is a lot we still don't know".

And because I can see the followup question coming.... That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything to try to resolve the situation.

Scott

 

[stugray]

Dingo44,

"Tunguska..... That story makes me have to change my pants."

Then consider this:

In the Middle of the conflict between India & Pakistan a few years ago a massive "entry event" was detected over open ocean ( similar in scope to the tunguska event ).

IF this had happened just a few hours later, it would have occurred over India or Pakistan.

What do you think that would have triggered?

Stu

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428295#post15428295 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
Dingo44,

"Tunguska..... That story makes me have to change my pants."

Then consider this:

In the Middle of the conflict between India & Pakistan a few years ago a massive "entry event" was detected over open ocean ( similar in scope to the tunguska event ).

IF this had happened just a few hours later, it would have occurred over India or Pakistan.

What do you think that would have triggered?

Stu

Wow, I hadn't heard about that one.

Scott

 

[Dingo44]

Thanks Stu, I was planning on getting a good nights sleep tonight... so much for that idea.

Seriously though, has anyone seen any reports where climatologist have factored large scale asteroid/comet impacts into past models?

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428329#post15428329 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
Thanks Stu, I was planning on getting a good nights sleep tonight... so much for that idea.

Seriously though, has anyone seen any reports where climatologist have factored large scale asteroid/comet impacts into past models?

I haven't heard of them being incorporated, but I don't think the data the models are emulating goes back far enough to really have the need to factor that in.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

scooter i deign that your arguement is way out of my league...i have been researching, and as far as individual reports go...it is like you said, very indecisive......the only possible way i could thwart that is by saying, but the signed statements made by the communities as a whole, and the three solutions paper supported by a high majority of the nas....but the first i have already done...and the last i can not as my computer doesn't work properly...i have a few library books that are 5 months over due...maybe i will use their computers....

anyway i guess i will have to trust the scientist i trust, and you yourown....whoever they will be...who are they anyway???

 

[Dingo44]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428348#post15428348 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
I haven't heard of them being incorporated, but I don't think the data the models are emulating goes back far enough to really have the need to factor that in.

Scott

I see... I'm just speculating here, but couldn't past ELE's have changed the climate so drastically that it sent the earth into a whole new long term climate cycle that might explain some phenomena we're seeing today? This might be way out there, just a weird thought I had.

 

[ctenophors rule]

i suppose.

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428371#post15428371 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
anyway i guess i will have to trust the scientist i trust, and you yourown....whoever they will be...who are they anyway???

Huh? Did you miss the post where I explained that I am not going to rely on any one scientist or any one source? It is all about the spectrum of views.

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428496#post15428496 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
I see... I'm just speculating here, but couldn't past ELE's have changed the climate so drastically that it sent the earth into a whole new long term climate cycle that might explain some phenomena we're seeing today? This might be way out there, just a weird thought I had.

Well, to be honest with you, thats probably a meaningless question. In a chaotic system as complex as the climate, its probably not really possible to trace back that far to determine a single cause. It could be an ELE, or a butterfly, or billions of tons of CO2 from fossil fuels being dumped into the atmosphere. Given that the feedbacks have done a reasonably good job at regulating things for such a long time, I lean towards the latter.

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428371#post15428371 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i have been researching, and as far as individual reports go...it is like you said, very indecisive

I am very glad that you are getting to see some differing perspectives on the topic. I don't expect that it will change your mind and it doesn't have to change your mind to still be productive. At the very least, you'll be well informed of some viewpoints that your future debate opponents may use against you.

Scott

 

[greenbean36191]

So when was the last "mass extinction" of corals & the subsequent evolution of the "current" versions?

Modern corals are somewhere around 240 million years old, but they only became major reef builders about 200 million years ago. Then as CO2 levels climbed in the Cretaceous (ultimately peaking around 3-5x modern levels) corals were displaced by calcitic bivalves as major reef builders until reef building corals disappeared about 75 million years ago- their disappearance is not during a mass extinction event. 10 Million years later the bivalves went extinct during the K-T extinction event, leaving a 14-20 million year gap with no reef building whatsoever. Modern reef building corals only came back to dominance about 35 million years ago after ocean chemistry became favorable for aragonite deposition again.