This was an eye opener - cont.

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the probability of asteroid or comet collisions with the Earth were to be just a few percent above what we predict today, then a LOT of the global climate changes in the past could be attributed to these events.
Click to expand...
But those events tend to leave pretty big evidence behind. Without that evidence there's no reason to assume that they are culprits, especially when other explanations already do a better job of explaining what is seen. The guy who first proposed an impact as the cause of the K-T event even wrote a paper about how there is no evidence to suggest that impacts are a common cause of mass extinctions.

I would say that it is a little speculative to say that no mechanisms exist for relatively rapid CO2 sequestering.
Click to expand...
Well it would be extremely speculative to say that such a mechanism does exist given that it has not made itself apparent during past periods of elevated CO2. Sure, there could be a new mechanism, but again it's not indicated by evidence and that's all science can go on- not wishful thinking.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15429391#post15429391 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191

Well it would be extremely speculative to say that such a mechanism does exist given that it has not made itself apparent during past periods of elevated CO2. Sure, there could be a new mechanism, but again it's not indicated by evidence and that's all science can go on- not wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Yea, I don't know that it is any more speculative than saying such a system does not exist. I'm not sure how you can conclude that it has never made a significant contribution in the past. It certainly could have, given how little we actually know about historical climate regulation. I wouldn't say it is wishful thinking, I think that it is one of several logical conclusions.

I tend to view the Earth's climate much like a chemistry problem....

The Earth's climate can reside in any of a number of relatively stable states. So, imagine a multi-dimensional surface in which there are many local minima. Each dimension represents a climate parameter that can be varied to transition between different states. To use chemistry/physics terminology, some of these stable local minima are higher "energy, some are lower "energy". There is an "activation energy" that must be overcome to transition between states. If we supply enough "CO2 energy" we can overcome the "activation energy" along the CO2 dimension and we can then slide into a different stable state along multiple dimensions.

Now, we have no idea what these other neighboring stable states are. And we don't know what processes give these other states their stability. It might very well be that the processes that grant stability to these neighboring states play a seemingly unimportant in our current stable state. There isn't really any good way of knowing.

Thats just the picture I tend to see in my head.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15429477#post15429477 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191

And just FWIW, Hansen's 1988 model projections are still spot on with reality.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in at least one his papers he discusses how short term (i.e. 10 year-20 year) periods cannot be used to validate a model. I'll have to dig up the reference for that one, so give me time.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15429429#post15429429 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Here is an excellent discussion on chaos in climate modeling-

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/
Click to expand...

I would disagree with the claims in this article about chaos theory not being a factor. With something like the Lorenz system you have a general trend with rough boundaries that can be seen given an infinite projection from some set of initial conditions. We do not have the luxury of such an infinite timeline about the climate. We have a limited set of data. From the arguement made in that article, we should be able to discern the range of all possible states that the Earth could be in, but as far as I know we can't do that because of an incomplete understanding of all mechnisms.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15429477#post15429477 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
As for the argument that Hansen is arguing against alarmism, he's generally not one to mince words about it. He's been quite clear that he feels that politicians and the general public are not nearly alarmed enough. Here is a column he wrote about a year ago on the topic- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/twenty-years-later-tippin_b_108766.html
Click to expand...

I think I like the old Hansen better.

My main issue with articles like that one are not that they are necessarily incorrect, but rather that they are unreasiltic when it comes to resolving the problems. Humankind isn't going to cease CO2 emmisions tommorow, next year, or even in the next 50 years. I don't care how much doom is hanging over our heads, that sort of rapid radical change will not happen. Most people are more worried about feeding their kids tommorow, than some giant catastrophe that will happen 50-100 years from now.

In my mind, it doesn't help the situation to keep scaring people with articles like that. Those types of articles are just as likely to cause a person to NOT believe in AGW as they are to scare someone enough into actually contributing to change.

Calmer heads tend to prevail. And if they don't, well the folks who wanted to instantaneously change the world tommorow probably wouldn't have succeeded in getting anything done either for the reasons mentioned.

I do not like his plan at all. I don't think it will work. I don't see how driving up the cost of energy with a tax is going to help. All that will do is increase the cost of US goods, increase unemployment, increase outsourcing, and send U.S. companies overseas to countries that are more accomodating with less regulations on emmisions/environment/pollution.

In my opinion, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Scott
 
ScooterTDI,

"Wow, I hadn't heard about that one."

Here you go: STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL SIMON P. WORDEN

"U.S. early warning satellites detected a flash that indicated an energy release comparable to the Hiroshima burst. We see about 30 such bursts per year, but this one was one of the largest we have ever seen. "

http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/asteroidtrigger.htm


Here's more:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090728-asteroid-threat.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/Deep_Impact.html

Sleep well ;-)

Stu
 
Last edited:
greenbean,

"But those events tend to leave pretty big evidence behind. Without that evidence there's no reason to assume that they are culprits, especially when other explanations already do a better job of explaining what is seen."

How about this:

"The Deccan Traps formed between 60 and 68 million years ago,....The release of volcanic gases during the formation of the traps contributed to an apparently massive global warming.......A large impact crater has been claimed to exist in the sea floor off the west coast of India. Called the Shiva crater, it has also been dated at sixty-five million years, right at the K"“T boundary. The researchers suggest that the impact may have been the triggering event for the Deccan Traps "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

The above statements provide information on a number of my previous points.

1 - The massive quantities of gases released during this event are an example of what I was referring earlier when I spoke of "volcanoes". I did not mean the volcanic activity that we experience on average. I was referring to the massive events that occur INfrequently.

2 - There is evidence all over the planet of massive impacts. Using satellite imagery ( and the Shuttle SRTM data ) we are just NOW correlating the data and are finding more impact evidence every day.



AND

"Several other craters also appear to have been formed about the time of the K"“T boundary. This suggests the possibility of near simultaneous multiple impacts, perhaps from a fragmented asteroidal object, similar to the Shoemaker-Levy 9 cometary impact with Jupiter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Tertiary_extinction_event#Impact_event

Stu
 
ctenophors rule,

"yeah sure their is coal in the ground, which means it was once co2, and that means that animals and plants, and other forms of organic matter died away and were barried..."

We have NO evidence that ALL the coal & oil was once animal or plant matter.
ORGANIC matter YES, but that does NOT mean it was once alive.

If organics such as methane, natural gas, ethane, coal, etc. can only come from animals or plants, then Titan ( largest of Saturn's moons ) must have been once TEEMING with life, since the moon is covered in oceans of methane & ethane ( organic compounds ).


The truth is MASSIVE amounts of CO2 have existed on this planet in the past and have been sequestered by geologic activity.

Prior to oxygen generating life on earth, there were very few Oxides in the earth's crust. NOW what do we see? Almost ALL of the rock we find is in the form of an oxide.

Early in the formation of life on Earth all life lived off of CO2 and were killed by oxygen. The oxygen levels did not begin to rise to anywhere near what they are today until trillions of tons of oxygen was absorbed by the oxidation of rock. This was a form of Oxygen sequestration.

I bet the anaerobic life back then was getting ****ed because this new O2 crap was rising to dangerous levels in the atmosphere.

Stu
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15430061#post15430061 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
ctenophors rule,

"yeah sure their is coal in the ground, which means it was once co2, and that means that animals and plants, and other forms of organic matter died away and were barried..."

We have NO evidence that ALL the coal & oil was once animal or plant matter.
ORGANIC matter YES, but that does NOT mean it was once alive.

If organics such as methane, natural gas, ethane, coal, etc. can only come from animals or plants, then Titan ( largest of Saturn's moons ) must have been once TEEMING with life, since the moon is covered in oceans of methane & ethane ( organic compounds ).


The truth is MASSIVE amounts of CO2 have existed on this planet in the past and have been sequestered by geologic activity.

Prior to oxygen generating life on earth, there were very few Oxides in the earth's crust. NOW what do we see? Almost ALL of the rock we find is in the form of an oxide.

Early in the formation of life on Earth all life lived off of CO2 and were killed by oxygen. The oxygen levels did not begin to rise to anywhere near what they are today until trillions of tons of oxygen was absorbed by the oxidation of rock. This was a form of Oxygen sequestration.

I bet the anaerobic life back then was getting ****ed because this new O2 crap was rising to dangerous levels in the atmosphere.

Stu
Click to expand...

All good points, but it seems to me that at least silicates probably existed in the crust long before an oxygen atmosphere developed, so I don't know if it is fair to say that the crust consisted of almost no oxides.

To play devils advocate with your comments...

Life on Earth has previously demonstrated the ability to drastically change atmospheric composition and global climate. It has shown that huge sinks (the minerals forming mineral oxides) can be overwhelmed. Yes, I am sure those anaerobes weren't too happy about the oxygen, but we wouldn't be too happy if the atmospheric composition and climate shifts dramitically either.

Scott
 
Scott,

"but it seems to me that at least silicates probably existed in the crust long before an oxygen atmosphere developed"

At least in MY understanding free oxygen is very rare in the universe.
I thought that only planets that have life would have more than trace amounts of free oxygen.
In fact the detection of Oxygen in the atmosphere of a non-solar planet is the "holy grail" of the search for life outside of our solar system.

I suppose silicates can be formed at high temps & reactions with CO2 and free oxygen is not required.
However it was my understanding that the cause of Iron oxides is due to atmospheric reactions with free oxygen.


Here's an abstract that is interesting:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/gbi/2006/00000004/00000004/art00004

It states: "In this model, the timing of the oxic transition is strongly affected by buffers of reduced materials, particularly iron, in the continental crust."

Stu
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15429231#post15429231 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
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
Click to expand...

ok by scientist i trust, i am talking about the mean, the majority, the few documents i have scene that have the majority of scientist backing them, such as those where a few of the quotes i have posted came from.....

by trusting the "spectrum", doesn't that mean you trust no one, because teir are a whole bunch of different ideas?

are you waiting for a 100% agrement?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15430061#post15430061 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
ctenophors rule,

"yeah sure their is coal in the ground, which means it was once co2, and that means that animals and plants, and other forms of organic matter died away and were barried..."

We have NO evidence that ALL the coal & oil was once animal or plant matter.
ORGANIC matter YES, but that does NOT mean it was once alive.

If organics such as methane, natural gas, ethane, coal, etc. can only come from animals or plants, then Titan ( largest of Saturn's moons ) must have been once TEEMING with life, since the moon is covered in oceans of methane & ethane ( organic compounds ).


The truth is MASSIVE amounts of CO2 have existed on this planet in the past and have been sequestered by geologic activity.

Prior to oxygen generating life on earth, there were very few Oxides in the earth's crust. NOW what do we see? Almost ALL of the rock we find is in the form of an oxide.

Early in the formation of life on Earth all life lived off of CO2 and were killed by oxygen. The oxygen levels did not begin to rise to anywhere near what they are today until trillions of tons of oxygen was absorbed by the oxidation of rock. This was a form of Oxygen sequestration.

I bet the anaerobic life back then was getting ****ed because this new O2 crap was rising to dangerous levels in the atmosphere.

Stu
Click to expand...

iFeel so bad for the anaerobic eubacteria, and archaebacteria....i think i will burn a whole bunch of tires to bring them back...lol jk jk

Besides me being owned in an informative way about my ignorance, i see your point...i think.

The earth can survive as it has in the past with this new oxygen less environment...the problem is much of what we consider "life" can not. so are we to condemn life to death like one of those mass extinctions did?

What's the only difference between an infrequent super volcano, or a mega meteorite??? we can reason, we can be equally destructive, but human beings **** sapiens(underlined) can do something about it.....which makes us preternatural, not natural, and means that we have the responsibility as reasonable life forms...not to let it happen...

and i had a great comment for religious peoples, not disrespectful, but I can't post it because of user agreement...but I will give a hint

it rhymes with "œcommunion plover danimals".
:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15430586#post15430586 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule

by trusting the "spectrum", doesn't that mean you trust no one, because teir are a whole bunch of different ideas?

are you waiting for a 100% agrement?
Click to expand...
No, not at all. Let me give an example...

If a new movie came out, you might ask your friends if they have seen it. You might ask them if it was good or not. You are likely to get a variety of answers. One person will say that they didn't like the movie because the plot was thin. Another person might say that they loved the movie because the action was so intense, etc. None of those opinions are wrong, but they all let you know something different about the movie.

It is a different way of finding the "mean", as you described it. Instead of relying on a few "consensus documents", I prefer to go to the actual primary sources of information because they usually give a better detail about the subject and are better at demonstrating the diversity of opinions.

Lets say you asked all your friends to get together and write you a report about their collective opinion of the movie. To achieve a consensus, they might have to sacrifice some of the details that they dispute amongst themselves in order to give you something that they all agree on. I'd rather have all the details by asking each friend individually.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15430384#post15430384 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
Scott,

"but it seems to me that at least silicates probably existed in the crust long before an oxygen atmosphere developed"

At least in MY understanding free oxygen is very rare in the universe.
I thought that only planets that have life would have more than trace amounts of free oxygen.
In fact the detection of Oxygen in the atmosphere of a non-solar planet is the "holy grail" of the search for life outside of our solar system.

I suppose silicates can be formed at high temps & reactions with CO2 and free oxygen is not required.
However it was my understanding that the cause of Iron oxides is due to atmospheric reactions with free oxygen.


Here's an abstract that is interesting:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/gbi/2006/00000004/00000004/art00004

It states: "In this model, the timing of the oxic transition is strongly affected by buffers of reduced materials, particularly iron, in the continental crust."

Stu
Click to expand...

Yea, planetary free oxygen is probably pretty rare, but I'm fairly sure that silicate formation is occuring in cooling gas clouds, accretion disks, etc in the same way that CO2 is forming under similar circumstances. Remember that silicon and carbon occur in the same periodic group and have similar reactivities.

Scott
 
That article from the Huffington post the Bean posted is a great example of why I have a problem with the alarmist AGW folks. First off, the Huffington post is an extremely bias political paper. Second, all those proposed controls over emissions will kill the American economy and cause way more harm than good.

All those policies are politically motivated and are nothing but an excuse for giant tax increases and further regulation of individual's daily lives. The author claims it is a 99% certainty that we're heading towards a tipping point and that unless action is taken, we're all doomed. That is very irresponsible and should set off alarm bells in everyone's head. He's trying to scare people into his way of thinking.

Good job ctenophor :)
 
Last edited:
Since you guys seem interested in many of the other articles I've posted, have a look at this

Smith, L.A "What Might We Learn From Climate Forcasts" PNAS, 99(suppl. 1), 2002.

Just another good read.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15431720#post15431720 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Since you guys seem interested in many of the other articles I've posted, have a look at this

Smith, L.A "What Might We Learn From Climate Forcasts" PNAS, 99(suppl. 1), 2002.

Just another good read.

Scott
Click to expand...
I like that this guy seems to have a subtle sense of humor.

"A profusion of tildes"

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Paul B
IMO How to set up a tank to stay healthy and immune
2
Replies
20
Views
770
Paul B
Paul B
Fiish
Nitrites and nitrate toxicity
Replies
10
Views
566
Fiish
Fiish
Paul B
Earthworms as fish food
Replies
4
Views
354
xLennie
xLennie
3
Ammonium Chloride and oxidizer (KMnO4), to grow corals, less water changes, and very low organo-phosphates:
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
JCOLE
JCOLE
Noah_Reefing
An essay on sustainable fishing
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
jamsymaz
J
Back
Top