by AdamB » Wed 22 Mar 2017, 10:34:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'I') may add that our level of damage and interference with the natural systems is unprecedented in scope and in intensity.
If by "damage" you are referring to just change, you are sorely mistaken. Typical "I am human, I rock!" routine, very few ever take the time to learn the history of their planet (let alone species) when it comes to other biologics that changed made the planet unrecognizable. We haven't even come close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_eventHuman hubris, pure and simple.
Sorry, not in this short a time scale except for a meteor strike
Obviously there is no way to make this claim, because the time resolution of our methods looking into the past aren't near as good as modern times. And let us mention things we do know, for example, humans did okay through the +15C change coming out of the Younger Dryas, AND the resulting cooling afterwards. Yet somehow the climb out of the LIA (similar to climbs out of the Medieval Warming, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming, and Holocene A and B warmings), because we are myopic, is somehow far different, and of course it can only be humans doing it. And a fact that is indisputable, is that the prior biologics did FAR MORE damage to the planet in terms of changing the climate, short changes (human based or not) aren't just the purview of meteor strikes.
https://www.wunderground.com/climate/volcanoes.aspI imagine there are others, but again, your perspective is species specific, when obviously other biologics have done far worse. The good news being we probably can't hurt the environment as much as a fern already did, regardless of the rate of change over short periods of time, for any reason.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
by Plantagenet » Wed 22 Mar 2017, 11:35:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 't')he time resolution of our methods looking into the past aren't near as good as modern times.
There is annual and even seasonal resolution in climate records from ice cores, tree rings, and some lake records. That is more then enough resolution to show that the current rate of change is unprecedented.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', ' ') humans did okay through the +15C change coming out of the Younger Dryas, AND the resulting cooling afterwards.
You don't know what you are talking about. The Younger Dryas was a big climate event but it didn't produce +15 C of global warming. In fact the Younger Dryas produced COOLING not a warming, and it was followed by warming---not a cooling as you wrongly claim. You've got everything backwards, i.e. 100% wrong.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', ' ')somehow the climb out of the LIA (similar to climbs out of the Medieval Warming, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming, and Holocene A and B warmings), because we are myopic, is somehow far different, and of course it can only be humans doing it.
Of course it is different. Atmospheric CO2 levels haven't been this high in millions of years---and yes humans are doing that.
Sheesh---what a collection of mis-statements followed by a claim that makes it clear you don't even know that humans are increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. Wow---thats a new low, even for this site
Cheers!
by AdamB » Wed 22 Mar 2017, 22:38:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 't')he time resolution of our methods looking into the past aren't near as good as modern times.
There is annual and even seasonal resolution in climate records from ice cores, tree rings, and some lake records. That is more then enough resolution to show that the current rate of change is unprecedented.
When I was talking past, I was referring to the more rigorous methods of measuring temperature. Ever since Mann demonstrated the survivor effect with particular proxies, I have been a bit leery of those who don't stick with the best, longest, and rigorous long term temperature sets, which are ice cores of course.
Now I know people tend to discount them as a global proxy, but that could be because it doesn't tell the story that some folks want. And then when Kobashi uses them to calculate quite the uncertainty band for natural variability, you can understand why folks aren't thrilled to discuss that kind of quantification. As we all know from Schneider's famous quote from the late 80's, we need cool and neato alarming sounding stuff to get people to do what the scientists tell them. The instant you let the idea slip that maybe the uncertainty is mixed in here somewhere, well, we can't have that can we?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('plantagenet', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', ' ') humans did okay through the +15C change coming out of the Younger Dryas, AND the resulting cooling afterwards.
You don't know what you are talking about. The Younger Dryas was a big climate event but it didn't produce +15 C of global warming. In fact the Younger Dryas produced COOLING not a warming, and it was followed by warming---not a cooling as you wrongly claim. You've got everything backwards, i.e. 100% wrong.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
by Plantagenet » Thu 23 Mar 2017, 14:04:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 'T')he instant you let the idea slip that maybe the uncertainty is mixed in here somewhere, well, we can't have that can we?
?????
If you look at scientific data and even GCM projections of future climate change, the estimates always come with a +/- and a number appended at the end.
The number after the +/- sign IS the uncertainty. Its the variability, usually reported at one standard deviation, inherent in the numerical data.
Get it now?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', ' ')
So I'm not sure why the Younger Dryas is marked as it is, you could be quite right
Of course I'm right. Please go back and figure this out---you've got things reversed.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', ' ')we are pumping out CO2. It is what we do. Don't know about you but I can't stop emitting CO2 for ore than a minute or so!
All animals emit CO2----its what animals do. All plants absorb CO2----its what plants do.
Now for your homework please explain in one paragraph why the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere has dramatically increased since the industrial revolution. HINT: fossil fuels.

atmospheric CO2 concentrations