This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Melting Ice And Freezing Fossil Fuels Ambitions
Submitted by James Stafford via OilPrice.com,
It’s not mere anecdotal evidence: Visibly melting sea ice is the best evidence that the planet is warming. So prospecting for oil in the Arctic is a tricky endeavor that must be undertaken slowly and with extreme caution, argues Fen Montaigne, senior editor of Yale Environment 360, author of “Fraser’s Penguins: A Journey to the Future in Antarctica” and other books, and contributor to National Geographic, The New Yorker and Smithsonian magazines.
So just how hot is it going to get? Hotter than we can handle if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, Montaigne tells us in an exclusive interview in which we discuss:
• Why prospectors should proceed with extreme caution in the Arctic
• Just how hot it’s going to get with global warming
• Why science is being side-lined in the climate change debate
• Why oil companies will have to keep their assets in the ground
• Why we need to rethink agricultural subsidies
• What we can expect next from the volatile EV market
• What really concerns environmentalists about natural gas
• The great fossil fuels paradox
• Why natural gas may not only be a bridge to the future, but the future itself
• Why the US government has no business mandating ethanol
Interview by James Stafford of Oilprice.com
Oilprice.com: We’ll start with the Arctic Sea because so much of your work has focused on this area. Right now, the talk here is of vast opportunities, and vast environmental concern. How can we balance these two, and what is at stake?
Fen Montaigne: I am in the go-slow camp when it comes to developing the Arctic, whether it be the region’s fossil fuel riches, its minerals, or its fisheries. I think the problems that Shell has experienced in its early attempts to drill off Alaska’s coast bolster the case for a cautious approach. Cleaning up an oil spill in that environment would be far, far more difficult than in the Gulf of Mexico, and a spill’s effects would be more severe and long lasting in a cold-water environment than in warm waters.
The Arctic nations — as well as other interested countries, such as China — need to carefully survey and assess the resources of the Arctic basin and draft a conservative plan for their exploitation. That may include a ban on drilling for oil and gas in large sections of the Arctic.
Oilprice.com: How can you make the case for global warming using the decline in Arctic Sea ice, and how profound will the consequences be?
Fen Montaigne: No better evidence of the warming of the earth in the last century — and particularly in the last 30-40 years — exists than the melting of the cryosphere, or ice zones. More than 90% of the world’s glaciers are in retreat, and the disappearance of Arctic sea ice is nothing short of stunning.
I have seen this melting with my own eyes, having spent 5 months researching a book on the Antarctic Peninsula, where sea ice and glaciers are retreating rapidly. Earlier this year, I visited a glacier in Switzerland that has retreated by a half-mile since I last saw it 20 years ago; this is not mere anecdotal evidence, as nearly all the glaciers in the Alps, Andes, etc., are in rapid retreat.
The world is warming. The overwhelming evidence is that it’s caused by human activities. The only question is how hot things are going to get. If we continue doing as little as we are doing now to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, it is entirely possible that the world might be 5 to 10 degrees F warmer in a century or two, which is not a world I’d like my children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren to be living in.
Oilprice.com: More broadly on the climate change scene, Yale Environment 360 recently published an article discussing the implications of a climate activist movement seeking to persuade universities, cities and other groups to sell off their investments in fossil fuel companies. What’s the long-term logic behind this movement and what will the impact be?
Fen Montaigne: I won’t attempt to predict the impact of the divestment movement. But to me one thing is clear: If in the next 100 years the world’s oil, gas and coal companies develop all the fossil fuel assets that they’re now sitting on, the world is going to be a very unpleasant place in which to live, barring some technological miracle that enables us to suck vast amounts of CO2 out of the air. It’s this realization that is driving the divestment movement and the fight to slow climate change.
Believe me, as a 60-year-old American, living in the most affluent country in the most affluent period in history, I appreciate and value what fossil fuels have done for civilization. I know we’re not going to be able to transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy overnight. But if you keep approving tar sands projects, or massive pipelines, or drilling in the Arctic, when does it stop? When does this movement to a renewable energy economy begin? If I were running a fossil fuel company, I’d be uneasy about the concept of so-called “stranded assets,” because at some point — when seas begin to rise significantly, when weather is sufficiently wild and destabilized, and when things are just too damn hot — people, business owners, and governments are going to say it’s time to stop burning fossil fuels as if there is no tomorrow. I think that as global warming intensifies, it’s likely that a significant portion of the assets of fossil fuel companies are going to have to remain in the ground.
Oilprice.com: As the climate debate increasingly polarizes the American public, science seems to be getting in the way of agendas on both sides. Your magazine recently noted how even environmentalists are ignoring science when it stands in the way of furthering their agendas. Are we entering a period in which scientific facts will be completely sidelined as climate change becomes the strict purview of politics?
Fen Montaigne: It’s indeed unfortunate that climate change has become so intensely politicized in the US and that both sides resort to twisting the facts and using super-heated rhetoric.
From my perspective, however, I think there is a lot more distortion of science on the climate change denier side. Still, when global warming activists ring alarm bells every time there is a heat wave or a period of intense storms, I think that’s a mistake. What happens if we have an unusually cold spring in the eastern US or Europe, like the current one? Does that mean global warming is a hoax? Of course not. Short-term ups and downs in the weather should not be the cause for either side to crow or cry wolf.
I also think it’s unwise when global warming activists warn that it’s “game over” for the climate if something like Keystone XL is approved. OK. So what happens if Keystone is approved? If that means it’s “game over,” then why should any of us worry about reducing CO2 emissions?
I do believe that in the US, we’ll soon be moving into a period where there is less debate about the science of climate change, for the simple reason that it’s going to become increasingly clear that human-caused climate change is affecting the world, from our backyards to the poles. Of course, the debate over whether global warming is real scarcely exists in Europe, which has far less of the contrarian, anti-science streak that exists in the US.
Oilprice.com: There is a significant amount of resistance to the Ethanol mandate, not only because of the connection to food crops with corn-based ethanol. Do you think America is ready for this mandate?
Fen Montaigne: I think that the US’s byzantine system of agricultural subsidies is a mess and needs to be seriously reformed. And I don’t think the US government ought to be in the business of mandating ethanol production.
Oilprice.com: What can we expect from the electric vehicle market in the next 2-3 years? Why have they experienced so many ups and downs? Where has it gone wrong?
Fen Montaigne: I am no expert on electric vehicles, but I am confident that reasonably priced EVs and hybrids will become increasingly common, especially as batteries improve and charging stations become more widespread.
As has been widely noted, the Obama administration’s mandating of far-better fuel economy standards was probably the most important environmental achievement of Obama’s first term. I think that the federal government, working closely with the private sector, also has to become far more involved in stimulating the transition to a renewable energy economy.
Ultimately, it’s innovation and advancement in science, engineering, and the private sector that are going to help solve this climate problem, but a transition as massive and revolutionary as the one away from fossil fuels cannot be done without government involvement.
Oilprice.com: What do you think of T. Boone Pickens’ idea to convert US trucking fleets to natural gas? Is this viable over the long term?
Fen Montaigne: I think using natural gas as a “bridge to the future,” including powering more trucks with natural gas, is a good idea. But many environmentalists are right to be concerned that natural gas is looking less like a bridge to the future, than the future itself. As I said earlier, societies have to take major steps to wean themselves off fossil fuels, and few countries are doing that now, with notable exceptions such as Denmark.
Oilprice.com: Is it possible for the fossil fuels and alternative energy industries to work together to create a viable “transition” period for a sustainable future?
Fen Montaigne: Of course it’s possible. The challenge is that it’s just so easy to keep using fossil fuels, as they are such a compact, relatively inexpensive, and effective source of energy. The profits are enormous, far greater, at this point, than in the renewable energy industry. This is why it is so hard to disrupt the status quo, but that’s what has to happen. What we’re looking at is one of the great paradoxes of history — the very sources of energy that have enabled us to achieve such an advanced civilization and to bring us so many comforts and conveniences are also the sources that threaten to dangerously destabilize the climate that has fostered the growth of human civilization over the past 12,000 years.
Oilprice.com: Are there any significant ways in which the environmental movement has metamorphosed in recent years due to the shale revolution, the natural gas boom, and other energy-related developments??
Fen Montaigne: Leading environmental thinkers such as Bill McKibben have pointed out that the environmental movement used to take heart in the prospect of peak-oil or peak-coal. I think the shale gas and shale oil boom of recent years, as well as the discovery of new oil and gas fields, have demonstrated that fossil fuel use is not going to decline in the next century because oil and gas fields or coal mines are tapped out. That changes environmental strategy, and is one of the reasons that McKibben’s 350.org and other groups are now targeting specific projects like Keystone XL.
And I am sympathetic to one of their central arguments: At some point, you’ve got to stop developing new oil and gas reserves and begin seriously developing alternative sources of energy. Otherwise, it’s going to get awfully hot, and rising seas are going to pose a major threat to cities from Shanghai to Miami.
»
- 29960 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Does this also mean saturated fat in food clogs your arteries? Who knew from Rand here that the debate was settled on warming.
Ever been in a real greenhouse? Then you'd be aware that many greenhouses burn wood/oil/gas to pump the co2 into the greenhouse to produce bigger plants (often, the heat is vented off and doesn't enter the greenhouse). Yup, vegetation absorbs carbon dioxide. The earth has great ability to balance itself without the aid of greenies. Cycles exist in nature as well as economics.
ONCE more, weapons-grade youFailium has been loaded into the cannon you aimed backwards at yourself. You noticed, right, that we're REMOVING the vegetation to BUILD CITIES, right?
Didn't read or didn't understand 'varies in strength'?
I can just look at the melting Martian ice cap to determine the sun's energy release. No atmosphere there to interfere or allow the hoax of greenhouse gasses to operate.
#1 there is atmosphere on Mars
#2 temperatures on Mars are not correlated up or down with those on Earth
#3 even on the MOON the temperatures aren't fluctuating like they are on Earth and it's right next to us relative to the sun, but WE have atmosphere & the moon does NOT.
Pull your head out. How stupid can you be?
If the ice caps on Mars and the temperatures on Mars, Neptune, Saturn (massive planetary hurricane) are increasing, then what could POSSIBLY be the cause?
Maybe that huge ball of fusing gas?
None of this is true.
Pull your head out of YOUR ass.
The temperatures on the outer planets are NOT increasing.
And if the big ball of gas being so close to us could raise Neptune enough we could even read it, our temperature on EARTH would rise 100 degrees.
That's right, winter would be tropical and summer would be mass deaths of all species during the season.
Ever heard of the inverse square law, dumbass?
You know how close we are to the sun compared to Neptune? Saturn??
A rise here due to the sun of +100 degrees would register as a mere 0.1 rise on Neptune.
Do the math, jackass.
If what you said is true then every summer the oceans would BOIL off.
And that's twice a year because summer in the North is winter in the South, summer in the South is Winter in the North.
All life on Earth would be ended if what you said was true - far before last year.
Hot, and bright!
Really. Not like the heat and light from fake passion.
Really Hot and Bright.
As in fucking dry us out into just another dead cloud of so much astral dust.
Like with an atomic blast at midnight.
So, the sun is not alone and Yes We Can Change the environment on a long enough timeline and have only HOPE for a better, vanished time.
+1
its too hot in Denver, tell ya that.
Global warming... global climate change... sure. I get it. I used to skate on a frozen lake behind my house every winter when I was in fight club high school (best 7 years of my life).
Caused by humans... bullshit on that one pal. Can't go where you're going, nah.
Long, and I mean LONG term warming and cooling trends have always been present on the earth and they'll continue, most likely forever. This myopic view of pollutants causing climate change is an afront to those scientists who are researching historic long term climate changes.
Get those two groups in a room and we'll see who comes out the winner (getting some popcorn).
Put differently, you'll find out who comes out on top. Whores generally make money lying on their backs.
Oh No! What will happen to the world if farmers start growing crops in Siberia, and Eskimos have to start working the land?
We have arrived at Peak Bullshit
a long time ago
fuck the polar bears. their own fault for not adapting faster.
If you are against CO2 emissions than you are also against trees. Trees need CO2 to live.
F You tree haters.
And by the way plants also like electrolites.
Thanks, ct. Now it makes sense, the "Daily Kos" like change in the tune of this once mighty wurlitzer...
"Notice at the bottom of the page- zerohedge/abc media ltd."
Whoops!!! Global warming with no reference to geoengineering?
Like chemtrails, for instance, which are clouds of mostly metal nano-particles blocking 20% of the sun's solar radiation.
These clouds also trap earth's heat from escape into the stratosphere.
Pfft, Geoengineering..
Next thing you know, they'll be monitoring communications under the guise of National Security.
We know you have your choice of targets so we'd like to thank you for spying on us today.
: "Oilprice.com: What do you think of T. Boone Pickens’ idea to convert US trucking fleets to natural gas? Is this viable over the long term?
Fen Montaigne: I think using natural gas as a “bridge to the future,” including powering more trucks with natural gas, is a good idea."
Only if the trucks are powered by steam engines. Steam engines have enough power to haul trucks with the heaviest of loads. They should have never got rid of the steam powered locomotives.
Some folks just desire to be allowed to live life as a free man, their natural state and some folks beg to be ass banged and boot stomped by their overlords. It's not hard to tell which ones belong in those groups based on the comments.
THE OVERLORDS want to keep burning Co2 needlessly rather than using more efficient energy consumption means, and I get to lose my food supply with no compensation.
How fair is that?
Bullshit
Did your moon ring tell you to write this gibberish? Global warming? Hahahahah, what a fucking rube you are
The Sun provides and the Dude abides
Combine the two...
Natural naked ass banging and boot stomping.
Win/win and everybody's happy.
and now you can even get married too.
Doggy style, but the ass is "exit only".
This is the coldest summer I've ever experienced.. "warming" my ass.
This is why it is no longer refered to as " global warming". Instead we now call it "climate change" so no matter what the temperature is, the crisis still remains. Things like this don't help my attempt to become less cynical.
Miffed;-)
The big ball of gas in the sky has been having some strange fits lately. The solar maximum peaked last year and in the Midwest we had the coldest June I can remember. I had to use the furnace to heat my house at night for two weeks.
Notice you seem to get sunburned a lot quicker. The earth's magnetic field is weakening. We're due for a polar reversal. Perhaps the strange weather is due to that. Far more plausible than co2.
The small tilt of the Earth gives us seasons. Winter averages 27 degrees where I live, summer is like 82. Considering earth's orbit wobbles, and we can measure the Earth is closer to the sun during certain periods, perhaps that has something to do with it as well.
Maybe the Mayan calendar tracked periods of pole reversals and orbital variations. The end of the world prophecy was not the end of the world but a time that marked a great switch in the Earth that would cause great change.
What we don't know about the earth dwarfs what we do know.
"Notice you seem to get sunburned a lot quicker. The earth's magnetic field is weakening."
Noticed no such thing.
Instead what I noticed is that winter is CONSIDERABLY warmer, even at night, and that every night is much warmer than normal every year for the last 10 years.
Sun light hits in the DAY TIME. Night time should get COOLER, much cooler, not just sit at the same daytime temperature less 2 celsius degrees. It's the co2 blanket holding IN the heat, it's the black large masses we call ROADS and parking lots, soaking up the heat & releasing it all night.
This "solar activity" theory is pure bullshit.
The irradiance to the earth's surface has NOT increased. Next you'll be trying to pretend the charged particles of solar flares are light and for that matter, hitting us with massive heat, when in fact much of what hits us is charged protons & electrons which are not heat of any sort, are not light of any sort, and are deflected by the magnetic field. If they weren't we wouldn't get "sun burn"
We'd be irradiated like 1000000000000000000x Chernobyls to ash.
There are many other aspects of the sun that affect earth, the solar system, the solar wind, galactic wind, cosmic rays and weather on other planets. That you lack the intelligence to grasp that irradiance is only one function of that enormous gas ball in the sky, is of no surprise...
You just refered to cosmic rays & galactic wind as a function of the SUN.
Suddenly the complaints, losses & frustration on ZH is so clear.
I just didn't think the reason would be blatant stupidity combined with weapons-grade Fail(tm).
Wow.
IF it was THAT radiologically dangerous outside of the atmosphere, how did they manage to put those guys on the moon without 'em dying either straight away or pretty damn quick after returning?
Still, I have done some calculations on the back of an envelope recently that would suggest that I use FAR more energy in my daily life than my body produces. Since I use a standing 200-300 watts in my house, before I leave it, and my car does about 200KW/hour full chat, and I only make about 100watts apparently, biologically speaking then I am taking far more than I give, energetically speaking. Multiply that by a few hundred million, and I get a sense that maybe it's not so unbelieveable that human activities are affecting the eco-sphere.
Immediately, I am most concerned about nuclear power. Apparently 20% of UK electric is generated in that unacceptable way. Having reduced my consumption way beyond that 20% I personally do not need nuclear power. When I get some solar cells then I won't be needing centrally produced electricity at all...
Still need LPG for the car, but I am working that problem (and am starting to see a possible technological solution after some 5000 hours of personal research and self managed education in science and technological priciples).
"IF it was THAT radiologically dangerous outside of the atmosphere, how did they manage to put those guys on the moon without 'em dying either straight away or pretty damn quick after returning?"
Same way our satellites work. SHIELDING.
Remember, that GOLD foil stuff?
Fundamental uses of gold, intrinsic value? ALPHA RADIATION DEFLECTOR.
Other than that, math to ensure they know WHEN the Van Allen belts will be too big to safely work around and for that matter, apparently briefly there was a 3rd belt. That's got to be an interesting challenge.
You are, however, deliberately ignoring the truth of what I said:
a solar flare not the constant external environment would cook us.
Even when the solar flare is gone if the charged particles got through we'd be cooked and once it's eased up intensity we'd be dead already so it doesn't matter.
You don't care if 1 day out of 100,000 is the day a bomb goes off - what you care about is that you aren't sitting beside it when it does. If you were it doesn't matter if there's 45,239 days following with no explosion. It's too late.
"When I get some solar cells then I won't be needing centrally produced electricity at all..."
You will.
Your solar cells don't produce enough to make new solar cells and that leaves you having to rely on fuels & nuclear to make more inefficient solar panels.
There's only ONE properly efficient solar technology: photosynthesis.
As for the rest, steam power all the way. It's the least wasteful of energy conversions, the most able to recapture otherwise wasted heat.
Yup. Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup. Looks like we got all the environmental brainiacs here that we need.
Trust their knowledge and recommendations. They're also the ones who predicted that gold would be over $2000 by now. People line up to buy their science books and get their investment advice. Trust them.
This is B.S. and pseudo science. Should not have global ave temps have risen in last 10-15 yrs if we actually have global warming?
Correct. But it's not pseudo science, it's worse than that - it's a blatant lie designed to facilitate legal plunder.
There's been no global warming for over 17 years now and all the models by those cretins have been totally wrong.
Sure, alternative energy, but solar and wind do not drive a 4 ton combine or truck or tractor.
Global Warming is a lie; we are not that powerful. Pollution is real, "climate change" is a manmade construct to make $$$$.
Ethanol is all about the corn lobby and $$$, it is net neutral. That corn is being grown with oil, irrigated with oil, processed with oil, transported with oil. All it does is raise the price of corn for food, sweeteners, and livestock feed.
Sunspots and cycles mankind has ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER are what causes "climate change". All the hand-wringing is about the nebulous and transitory meaning of humanity. We are a blip on the climate radar. We are a blob on the pollution/radiation/crap in the water radar; but not the climate radar.
We've built a house of cards built upon fossil fuels. The fossil fuels are not causing climate change. They are, however, building an unsustainable food/fiber network reliant upon fossil fuels.
Absolutely ebworthen. I read an article a while back where they drilled deep in one of the poles to get a snapshot of co2 levels millions of years ago. Turns out the level of CO2 was roughly 300x the level seen today. This planet has gone through multiple changes in millions of years and it's the height of human arrogance to imagine we can influence it. Since we are due for a polar magnetic flip relatively soon ( geologically) it can be used as any other explanation for deviations from the norm. Perhaps we should dump money in research how to prevent this. I'm sure some college professor has been granted money to study this impending crisis.
Miffed;-)
Here is what we need to d oabout global warming. We need to defund this academic racket. There is ample market for weather prediction, including medium range forecasts. If these modellers are any good in predicting future weather, they can go into business and get rich. Then, market will decide if global warming is real.
Might want to look at some actual data.
Here's a look at the satellite based global average sea surface temperature, going back a decade or so.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/RSS_mwSST_2002_thru_May_2013.png
Warming? Hmm, not so much. Cooling? Oh... not so much. 'Course, rattling on about melting ice & other anecdotal tidbits is your priveledge, if that's your thing. But it doesn't really seem like time to be banging pots in the street.
Besides, I've got about 200, 400 ft tall bird whacking wind turbines 10 miles to the West. I'm sure we're going to be fine.
Hard to take a "scientist" seriously when he advocates "intelligent design" as a legitimate scientific theroy.....
With all this variability we can now call it 'Climate Change' and with that warming or cooling will both work to support the case. This is the precise way that strawmen get constructed and win the day politically. Why do we have (all of a sudden) a immigration crisis? a Global Warming crisis? A gay marriage crisis?
And the crisis that we do have ... A DEBT CRISIS ... is hidden on page 10 of the financial section.
I am so tired of all these pie in the sky crises when our nation is being plowed under by regulation, debt, superfluous spending and a tsunami of mendacity.
and what about where there's industry, why ignore those areas, the sources of highest rates & totals of methane & co2 output?
Not to mention the fools that started this mess in England FINALLY forced the fakers to admit they used the wrong statistical models and that the changes the claimed were significant were hardly that. But, hey don't bring this up either....or the fact that all the 'evidence' was horseshit that was modified to fit the argument. Sorta like the new york times, all the news that fits.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claim...
That link doesn't work for me, but this one is OK:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WoRbp2zt2ggJ:bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
Thanks..wasn't working earlier but the original is now.
Step #1: Re-ramp NASA with hyper funding which will pump the economy Keynesian style.
Step #2: Start a green recycling program to collect all the hole punch dots from all the offices in the U.S.
Step #3: In harmonious fascist fashion, outlaw the illegal disposal of all hole punch dots.
Step #4: Load all the dots onto Space Shuttles or Rockets of your choice and release them into the stratosphere to block sun.
boom done..sunlight gets reflected away from the earth, and the glaciers begin to grow again.
when I was a child (1970's) we always went on field trips to Yosemite. The tour guides always explained to us that Yosemite valley was formed by glaciers. We all wondered where the ice all went. They told us that the earth was significantly warmer now than it was when the Sierra Nevada Mountain range was covered with glaciers. So, best I can tell the earth is warming....and apparently has been for quite some time. But, heck...I'm all in for reversing the trend...it's too hot where I am in the summer.
You green thug.
The fucking glaciers didn't melt in the 70's.
In fact the 70's were unusually cold.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html
You're clueless and full of shit.
There have been periods in the earth's past with much higher temperatures. The most recent was the Eocene Thermal Maximum which occured 55 million years ago when global tempertures rose by about 6 degrees celcius over a period of 20,000 years. That was a mass extinction event for many plants and land-based animals. Humans have only been round for about 200,000 years so its difficult to say how we would have coped with the Thermal Maximum.
What were talking about now is of a different magnitude - a potential increase of 4 to 5 degrees over a period of of less than 300 years - i.e. from the start of the industrial revolution to the end of this century. That is a nano-second in geological time - and almost certainly catastrophic.
As a science buddy of mine recently told me 'we are screwed'.
It doesn't matter what we do now its too late. But you will never hear that from the powers-that-be. They know we are screwed but have to keep the populace from freaking out. But people know something is wrong. I honestly think that all the protests and disruption we have been seeing round the globe the last few years from Egypt to Brazil are really a expression of growing human angst about climate change - a subliminal recogition of impending disaster.
> It doesn't matter what we do now its too late. But you will never hear that from the powers-that-be.
You don't have to be a genius (but you can't be a moron!) to come up with a variant of the story in which there's NO global warming, but the powers that be are getting rich off the story and won't tell you there's nothing to worry about.
Global warming my ass.
The Eocene wasn't a time of mass extinction life actually proliferated, as for it getting warmer rubbish the trend is now downwards as the hot phase as the earth came out of the little ice age seems to have finished and it is going to get colder again. It was actually warmer back in the Minoan and Roman warm periods yet civilization flourished.
The Eocene wasn't a time of mass extinction life actually proliferated, as for it getting warmer rubbish the trend is now downwards as the hot phase as the earth came out of the little ice age seems to have finished and it is going to get colder again. It was actually warmer back in the Minoan and Roman warm periods yet civilization flourished.
Wanton destruction of world's forests (especially tropical rainforests) is a more important factor in rising carbon dioxide levels than burning fossil fuels, imho.
can't do one without the other. Those machines that lift trees & cut them into logs on the spot don't run on farts - they run on gasoline
As a science buddy of mine recently told me 'we are screwed'.
By 'we' did he mean 'you' as he pounded on your backside?
Too bad you soil the name of a great drummer.
We may still be saved by peak oil. Its not the "running out" part that matters, its the sustained high oil prices. This makes plugin hybrids very desireable, pushes money into battery research. Compare Mercedes 1980s plugin hybrid attempt with plugin hybrids today. We've gone from something that was barely workable in 1980 due to heavy batteries, to something that is pretty easy these days.
This battery revolution was brought about by laptops. Now auto makers are pushing it for large scale batteries.
Even if politicians do nothing we've passed the tipping point. Oil prices cannot be brought down for long, at most a major recession might bring them down for a few years. But there are no cheap sources of oil to tap. You can frack and get oil from all sorts of places, but its very expensive.
Solar and plugin hybrids are just too cheap, and oil just to expensive for the status quo to remain.
You do know that your batteries cost $15000 a pack and have to be replaced every three years and they burn underwater during flooding. I don't think economic is a word I would use around electric vehicles hybrids or otherwise.
Plus state governments are about to tax you by the miles you drive to compensate for the loss of oil taxes.
Not to mention the ecological nightmare batteries cause....sorta like forcing us to get rid of incandescent light bulbs and use mercury filled material hazards, or putting MTBE in gasoline which made gasoline spills on the road, anywhere, environmental hazards.
Not to mention they waste electricity as something has to be burned at a power plant and then transmission line transmitted hundred's of miles, and then you need to charge your battery. Coloumb loss efficiency, transmission line losses, laws of thermodynamics -
Engineers did the math 125 years ago and realised that the science suggested that putting the fuel source as close to the ICE was the best way to go. Gasoline still the densest storage of energy, by far.
www.bloomenergy.com
You are incorrect.
The Green Tyranny religion, piloted by its false prophet, Al "Sky Is Falling" Gore, won't be happy until we all live in caves again and grunt to communicate with each other. It's a religion to them, not science! REAL science is NEVER "settled".
Global warming? You fucking green thug!
What kind of garbage is that???
Congrats, you just got POOR rating for this propaganda.
Oh, and by the way, the polar bear image is a fake too. The fucking liar!
And ... FUCK YOU, Al Gore!
3 downvotes, great!
Here's 2 links to various fake polar bear hoaxes:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
and
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100039045/manbearpig-is-real-declare-top-climate-scientists-and-to-prove-it-heres-a-photo-shopped-image-we-found-on-the-internet-of-a-polar-bear-on-a-melting-ice-floe/
The warming of the planet IMO is a natural process. Us humans contribute very little to the warming, maybe 0.01%.
I think what most people don't realize is that the heating up of the planet, and melting of the ice caps actually causes the planet to eventually COOL down.
It is well understood by many scientists (underground scientists?) that we are headed for a mini ice age which should encapsulate the next 100-200 years.
This is because the ice caps melt into freezing cold water, and change the dynamics of our oceans. This surge of cold water eventually is what creates the ice age. It's almost backwards thinking really. Kind of like when the earth is closest to the sun it causes our winter (season). When the earth is farthest away from the sun, that causes our summer. Go figure right? Well it has to do with the ice caps melting when the earth is closer to the sun causing our winter.
So would record ice be evidence the planet is not warming?
Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record ... High?http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ic...
Hey Junior, did you read the article?
"In the Antarctic, you have to think of it as its own climate system. It's a big continent isolated from the rest of the world. It has ocean all around it. It has wind regimes that blow clockwise around it and isolate it. It acts differently from the Arctic, which is completely connected to the rest of the North Hemisphere.
Considering we regularly hear about the planet's stressed climate system, is this good news?
Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.
The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought. It's warming up, but slower. So it's all consistent with a warming planet."
> It's a big continent isolated from the rest of the world.
Ha-ha, are you fucking INSANE?
Have you ever heard of the fact that atmosphere and oceans conduct heat?
> The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought.
You think?
> So it's all consistent with a warming planet.
It's not consisitent with shit. The trend has been a cooling planet and there is no proof that the changes have anything to do with CO2 emissions. So even the planet is warming, it doesn't mean shit. And it certianly doesn't mean I should be a statistic in the global green plunder. Fuck you.
I wonder how many humans perished in the last global thermostat spike BECAUSE THEY USED FOSSIL FUELS? I wonder why no archeologist teams haven't found any ancient coal fired power plants? Like Bush's and Cheney's WMDs in Iraq, they have to be out there somewhere! The CFR says so, so it must be true. It came straight from a CFR jew, Mr.Levi, who is their Energy and Climate Control planner.
the last time CO2 infused so much into the ocean it led to the Permian Extinction event and most life on Earth was wiped out, even insects. Since insects can hide underground from damn near anything or fly away very quickly this shows there was nowhere to hide.
Losing all credibility posting nonsense like this ZH. No one believes AGW any more. It's getting cooler, the warming trend has been in abeyance for most of the past 15 years, the 'reconstructed historical temperature graph' is based upon computer models written by immensely biased and dishonest scientists who left their inane comments in the source code proving they always adjust temp data warmer to prove their thesis, and the computer models are based upon a unit of temperature increase per ppm of CO2 increase that is a lie based upon selecting a few dozen tree rings to generate the data that they wanted to generate. That 'constant' for temp increase per ppm is in all the models and it's just nonsense.
The entire thing is a lie. All of it. Ocean levels aren't going to drown the Maldives and the Arctic isn't going to melt to ice free.
tell that to the polar bear in the photo.
Who was 5 metres from shore and in no danger. You do know that photo is propaganda, right?
FACT, polar bear population is INCREASING!!!
you're only hurting your own credibility. The world is shifting permanently to proving and knowing that global warming is real and is man-made. Your group is getting smaller every day and looking very stupid every day for being so wrong. Evidence proves you wrong. Thermometers prove you wrong. And yet your side can only say "it's getting colder" while the numbers go UP NOT DOWN and t hen say "it doesn't proven anything" to shove heat readings right in your face.
you fail. Weapons-grade fail.
"It’s not mere anecdotal evidence: Visibly melting sea ice is the best evidence that the planet is warming."
Stopped right there.
The climate has always changed and only the green loonies want to STOP this natural process. Zero Hedge is really going down the shitter with bollox like this.
What can you expect of ZH posters... They're all Ron Paul thumping libertarians until the DOMA decision. Then they show they actually are religious fanatics and bigots who care less about liberty as in the liberty to impose their own fanatical morals on others. And then they get confronted with science, and they act the same as the Church did on Galileo. The same magical thinking about the evils of the gay acts here in the form of the irrationality of pulling carbon stored for millions of years underground up in the air in a geological nanosecond and expecting no consequences at all. Because, after all, it's all the fault of the left... those DAMN COMMIES!!!1w
Yet you're a registered user,,,
On libertarianism... I see this as existing on a scale between 0% (far Left, totalitarianism) and 100% (far Right, libertarian anarchy). In my experience, few people exist at either extreme. Even those who are one or the other, often retain strong views on certain issues. In this case, some ZH posters who are on the libertarian Right on many issues, still have strong views about the rights/wrongs of gay marriage. Others have strong views on abortion. Yet others have strong views about climate change etc.
This is life. It is not black & white.
Simply the worst ZH article ever. "It’s not mere anecdotal evidence: Visibly melting sea ice is the best evidence that the planet is warming." -- pure stupidity.
If the ice had melted in any quantity then the sea level would have risen and the beaches of England submerged. Not happend. The beaches are still there, the seal level unchanged and thus there has been no significant melting of ice anywhere.
the sea level has changed & several islands just barely above the sea level are now covered. The people had to move. People living near the shore in America will be drowned out soon too.
Global warming gives us global flooding and global sea level rise. These isolated stories tell of nothing more than local phenomena.
So, I guess global warming predates all life on Earth, seeing as Earth has had a climate for far far longer than it has had life, and that climate, as a metastable planetary physical system, has been changing ever since it came into existence....
Would we somehow magically be any less fucked if the climate, entirely apart from human activity, suddenly entered a new ice age, as it as done countless times in the past? No, but you can bet your ass the response would be exactly the same from the save-the-planet crowd.
All it comes down to is pure delusion as to human capabilities and serious anthropocentric bias in perception of locus-of-control.
PS: don't feed the troll Flakmeister, he knows perfectly well his rhetorical technique couldn't convince a fish to swim, you'll only encourage his megalomanic humanist techno-scientific-fetishizing ego-masturbation. Just ask yourself why someone so empirically, unassailably certain would show up time and again trotting out the exact same rhetoric every time any remotely climate-related topic appears, only to immediately resort into name-calling, flame-baiting, straw-men, and of course not-at-all-subtle bragging and shameless appeals to credentials and association. All merely distracting from the issue that, as he has admitted, there is nothing you can do to change it, and, at least to his mind, it is a foregone conclusion NOT SUBJECT TO DEBATE.
The idea that our pathetic activity at the margins of a huge, complex, billions of years old system that we don't understand properly has such a dramatic impact on it is utterly conceited beyond belief.
And then the idea that if we change our behaviour, we can then change it again, is probably even worse.
The is like the King Canute story to the power of ten.
Flakmeister is the classic anti-troll. Automatic +1 for him and -1 for you.
Next you'll be telling us that Fukushima is "not man made" and anthropomorphic global radiation is just a myth and that I should shut up and enjoy my free vitamin R instead of being a liberal commie.
Here is the PBS website on global warming. Everyone with an opinion on this subject should fully explore this site.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/
Yeah, right - if I want the truth, I should visit the Obama TV Web site...
Who said it was the truth? Are you one of those people who makes a decision before reading all sides of the story? Are you afraid when someone has an opinion different from yours?
Isn't PBS part of the Ministry of Truth?
Check out these graphs, especially the last one showing 450,000 years of atmosphereic CO2
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html
Bullshit.
Ice-trapped air bubbles reduce atmospheric variability of CO2.
Plant stomata records show a much greater degree of CO2 variability and are in better agreement with the GEOCARB model.
Is that information a result of your own personal research or do you actually have a link that explains where you came up with this?
While there is no doubt that climate change is occurring there is doubt that carbon emissions is the main driver. For example the strong correlation between carbon emissions and temperature that existed over the last few hundred years has for some reason beccome a non correlation in the last few years. The scientists who are sceptical about carbon emissions point out that they cannot build models that explain what has happened using only carbon emissions. Other factors that appear to be important are that planetary warming is occurring on all the outer planets and that ocean warming is correlated to underwater volcanic activity. We need to do more homework and get clear on what is causing the problem before we make plans on how to deal with it.
links or just your opinion?
How about reason - has every warming in the past been the result of man made C02?
Any warming in the past happened in just 300 years?
The evidence says YES it has the entire time.
Best way to sort out what energy and environ-mental policy we really need, is to seal all hydrocarbon pumps, and shutdown all uranium and coal power stations for a 3-month trial-run. You know, see how that goes.
It would clarify all minds pretty quickly, and the AGW policy-experts would be quickly told to stfu, and we would all grow a kernel of proportionality, ... and at break-neck speed ... well, ... after all the bodies had been collected up and counted ... and the global famine had been avoided ... i.e. after it had all been switched on again.
In the meantime we'll have to put up with twerps constantly hyper-venting about 'climate-change', and its relative hazard level, without the very useful exercise and perspectives of ever actually implementing their save-the-world 'policy' propositions.
--
An oldie but a goodie:
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2009-1024-2.mp3
Global Warming: Fact, Fiction or Conspiracy?
http://www.financialsensenewshour.com/broadcast/fsn2012-0825-3.mp3
Jesus, what is it with these people and their AGW fairytale?
"the overwhelming evidence is that it's caused by human activities".
Total bullsh*t.
It would be funny were the consequences of their policies as a result of their delusions not so disastrous for us all.
ACTUALLY the policy of pretending it's a myth will kill the entire human species. Your ignorance is like making me eat uranium and telling me it's vitamins.
you're full of horseshit and a giant fuckup for us all.
You're not even giving me any choice.
You use your igrance as a weapon to MURDER me.
How the fuck do you think I'm gonna take that?
I'm not. You best pay attention.
aye, die AGW-zombie scum! ROFL ... whatchagonna do, call the ghostbusters? lol
"oi! dis 'ere bloke jus won't believe me! ... I tell 'im like it is an all an e won't 'ave it!! ... he's all like dis n 'at ... he's draggin me down guv! ... can you like, sort 'im out? ... know wot I mean? ... nudge nudge- wink-wink ... say no more ... know wot I mean?"
Hey, bogus, can you like tweak your nose and change the fuckin channel already, this one's a real stinker - ta!
dunno if my comment appears as a reply to a comment as it was intendended:
for the global climate tax idea:
it is already implemented (CO2 tax) only to find out that all this CO2 certificates are tradeable, founding a nw market.
only psycho dad can have such an idea. instead of reducing CO2 the right to produce it can be traded.....
simplys sad : sign of the times and plain psycho sick.
I Don't know about what happened in America, but here in Australia, it was a bloody hot summer this year. For a while the entire continent averaged over 39C. Never before since records started getting kept have we seen such heat. Places like Sydney witnessed 48C days. That shit hasn't happened before. And the heat has kept up with us getting a very mild winter so far.
The meterology bureau did some simple maths and found that the last 10 years have been the hottest in the last 100 years. (They averaged temp records for all the sites). Climate change may not be affecting America much but else where it seems to be having a much greater affect.
Those readings from 100 or 150 years ago were taken in a field in a town with no industry or concrete.
The reading taking this week is at the airport or downtown, surround by acres of industry, concrete, cities, hi-rises, freeways, suburban homes and automobiles.
Of COURSE the reading will be higher. It proves nothing.
Nearly all the readings are still being taken in fields in a town with no industry or concrete. Most of the towns in Australia are smaller now than they were 50 years ago. It is called urbanisation. Less people work in primary industry. Your theory is invalid in the context of Australia. Do you want to guess another reason?
In the 1870s-1890s in western Canada, there was extreme drought. The land became unusable for crops. If that happened or rather when it happens again the AGW crowded will be telling us it is due to CO2. Shit happens to places we live. Cargary just got flooded...On a flood plane..And we are being told the once in a hundred year event is due to me driving to work.
#1 PROBLEM with global warming deniers: the #1 proof of warming is to measure the warming, the thermometer, and the #1 response is "it proves nothing" and "it's getting colder" like 39C was COLDER than 35 C. morons & frauds.
What a load of horse manure!
Southern hemisphere ice has been increasing for a long, long time:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Northern hemisphere ice has been decreasing somewhat, but that decrease is waning.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/ims_data.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Total world ice is increasing!
"Warmers" like to cherry pick data not take it as a whole. just like when they fudged the numbers that showed we're actually cooling now. they got caught but like cockroaches they just won't fucking die...
Had this article been found and read in an old fashioned newspaper or magazine, I would have wiped my ass with it.
first alternet says vitamins are bad now ZH touts global warming.....
http://www.weatheraction.com/
"the debate over whether global warming is real scarcely exists in Europe, which has far less of the contrarian, anti-science streak that exists in the US."
This is the biggest issue. In the US stupidity and lack of knowledge is revered as individualism.
The herd mentality is revered as socialism.
The comments in this thread were predictable, to say the least. Minds like fossils, stuck in amber, assured of their own understanding, clutching onto whatever mental flotsam they can to ensure their situation cannot change, like talismans or rosaries against Time.
Newsflash: No-one cares if you don't understand the science anymore, the people who do matter have already moved their pieces. Measures are in place to mitigate the chaos it's going to cause, but you can all pat yourselves on the back for making sure the solution is going to be drastic.
According to Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, the Commander of U.S. Forces Pacific: Significant upheaval related to the warming planet "is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about." Admiral Locklear focuses on risk management and preparedness: "While resilience in the security environment is traditionally understood as the ability to recover from a crisis, using the term in the context of national security expands its meaning to include crisis prevention." [source 10th May 2013]
I'd bother to list another 10 papers / sources from various militaries and paramilitary civilian organizations (such as the DHS [warning PDF]), but you'd only ignore them. Still, we live in interesting times: chances are, you get to see global gigadeath and some truly awesome special effects.
Oh, and to the people (we know who you are) who crafted this Belief Formation, with those dark, cruel hooks we can see in this thread, well done. Your weapons are predicated and predictable, and imagine they're being individual and free-thinking. Quite the show of skill there. They're still just Mimetic Robots though - want to see the upgraded organic version? I promise, they make yours look like tinker toys. Oh, for the other faction: that little attempt at viral media was embarrassingly bad.
Whatever!
Dude, it isn't hard to grasp, can you read a graph?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Chan...
Got that?
Now have a look at how long human-like ancestors have been around, and the history of the industrial revolution, in respect to this dataset.
Hint, both are shorter and considerably more recent events than the timescale and savage systematic global climate variability swings shown within that graph.
Ya think humans are responsible for any of what that graph records, given we and our energy fetish we're even around at the time?
All the subsequent political drivel and excuses for stupidity that you want to wallow in above is just the result of not grasping the most basic level of issues regarding this topic.
And that stuff's the grand-ignorance condition the Admiral's and Obama's thrive on.
The Earth's climate is variable, it always has been, and we already knew this in detail for many DECADES before the IPCC came along, so please, adjust mentally, console yourself, and try to get the fuck over it, ... as we have a few REAL issues, that we ARE actually responsible for. Because hearing you trot-out the obvious is pretty fucking tedious.
No, you completely missed my point.
And no, I'm not going to bother arguing science with you, you're obviously not interested in it or just simply don't understand it [hint: 5,000,000 years scale? Do you even know how stupid you make yourself look?] Hint: If you're going to post a 5,000,000 scale, and not understand that a rise of 100+ ppm in under 200 years is massively out of place then I cannot help you. Given that for the last ~ 3,000,000 years the Earth has had >500 ppm CO2, and in the last 200 years we've moved past 400 ppm, do you even grasp the concept of TIME?
3,000,000 years - > movement of perhaps ~220ppm from 500 -> 280 [includes ice age, rise of homo sapiens, entire changes to global ecosystems, loss of mega fauna and development of entire new species]
200 years -> +120 ppm back to 400ppm [until recently there were people born in the 19th Century still alive, and certainly it's within 3 generations]
Hint: 3,000,000 years ago, the Earth did not support the ecosystems we have today. Want to know how fast ecosystems adapt to environmental changes? Hint: takes more than 200 years. You have absolutely no ability to process "geological Time" and show a massively shortened horizon of your primitive monkey brain.
Your mind is very limited if you can't grasp this simple issue; however, as I said, you're suffering under a Belief Formation and nothing I say will alter your programming.
Good, as you have nothing to say of interest, you're a conceited tool talking irrelevant shit who clearly knows nothing at all about CO2 variability through geological time or what average or a 'normal' background level of CO2 concentration is, so don't comment on stuff you know nothing about. (BTW dumbass, I'm a geologist, I spend most days processing geological time).
And one more thing, do you suppose the English country side was always a nice place full of agreeable rolling pastures? Nope, What happened to that iconic "green and pleasant land" was a catastrophic Eco-disaster that wiped-out the things that humans didn't want there.
i.e. evolution favored us, so we created an environment humans find pleasant and very productive, for us. So get a clue, we are turning earth into a "green and pleasant land" bitch, all of it (or sand, whatever!), and all the stuff we don't want around, well you better sob and get over it, because like it or not, or what you think is wrong or right, or naughty or nice, its all going into the paleontological record.
Adjust, console yourself, and get the fuck over it, because it's happening, and all that policy agenda muck is ultimately irrelevant, as we are going to do it anyway, one way or another. ... mmkay?
or what average or a 'normal' background level of CO2 concentration is,
It's been under 500ppm for 3,000,000 years. Since you're a scientist, I'd have expected you to accept that part of my position as scientific fact. Do you need the papers for citation? I'm quite happy to provide them. So, you're a geologist; well done. Know anything about the fucking biosphere? Under 3,000,000 years is barely on your radar, so I'll forgive you for being such an ignorant muppet about it. Stick to coal seams made possible by the lack of fungi and oil deposits, please.
Since, as a scientist, you've totally ignored the changing flora & fauna of the Earth in those 3,000,000 years conveniently, I suspect you know fuck all about it. Am I lecturing you on the geological positions of coal / oil deposits, and the strata most beneficial to fracking? Nope. So, kindly don't lecture about something totally outside your own field, that you're clearly ignorant on.
Oh, and I'm well aware that large parts of Europe (and America, this myth that the Native American population hadn't already sculpted vast tracts of it to human usage is a laughable Manifest Destiny joke) are a manufactured ecosystem. So, your argument against not working solutions to climate change is that humans have altered their environment on a massive scale? So, we shouldn't do anything because it is possible to shape entire countries?
As a scientist, if you can't see the logical Falsehood here, you should resign. Your foot, nice Magnum you have there. As a scientist, the absurdity of your argument is very telling.
Thanks for uncovering another of the ZH pretentious science-deniers. Too bad you only get down voted for it...
Hey, got anything to say toss-pot? ... nah, didn't think so.
Hey, you're the ignorant dumbfuck who bought up CO2 concentration in the context of geological history, and then talked complete delusional shit about it pal.
Over geological history, not just a mere 3 million years, the current CO2 ppm level of today is LOWISH, and I do know a bit about the biology of invertebrate fossils and their distributions and diversity with time, and life and diversity absolutely thrived when CO2 was elevated at much higher levels than now.
CO2 concentrations through the phanerozoic (period of macroscopic life on land and seas ~ last 570 million years)
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html
Higher-res CO2 plot:
http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
--
So CO2 concentration was at 'record highs' as life and species diversity absolutely exploded across the earth. CO2 and heat did not inhibit life at all, it promoted, enabled, fertilized, amplified and assisted it. And it will do the same basic things for life now.
So sorry, your bio-assertions of the end of the world, due to CO2 rise, do not wash at all with what we actually know about Earth's geo-history, and about life's love of hot-wet CO2-enriched atmosphere concentrations.
But more to the fucking point, nor is climate-change in geological history driven by CO2 concentration rise!
like, ... fucking ... DUUUUUUHHHH!
Biodiversity and life in general will NEVER be effectively be micro or macro managed by humans, we can fashion it for our short-term purposes, and we do, we can fuck with its change some, but humans are nothing if not agents of biological change and evolution on this planet, and we are also ultimately irrelevant to it. To pretend we can stop being ourselves, or that we will ultimately reach UN mandated 'managed-sustainability' is completely delusional bollocks.
What we are really doing, in the grand scheme of things, is opening-up a series of niche opportunities for other critters to move into and occupy.
The truth is we are going to blow through our environmental 'limits' ... like, ... like they were a mere debt-ceiling 'limit' ... and we will adjust at that point, or we will go ... and that is happening now ... and THAT process is called biological evolution, bitch.
You keep demonstrating that you're a confused complete moron aurora. As I said to you, mentally adjust, and get the fuck over it, your delusional pseudo-greenie 'save-dah-wirld' sniveling is pathetic.
Hey, cunt. Already addressed this: only in the last 3,000,000 years has the Earth supported homo sapien life. In fact, only since the last ice age, ~100k years ago. And yet, STILL, you give us a graph over 550 MILLION YEARS. Oh, wait! Did I already say that fungi only came in 250-300 mm years ago? Yep, I did! Do we all know that dinosaurs didn't kick in until much later than that? OH YES WE DO! Oh, wait, does anyone knowing anything about science know that the TIME period between T-Rex and Stegosaurus is LARGER THAN THE TIME DIFFERENCE FROM HOMO SAPIEN TO T-REX?
OH, SHIT YES WE DO!
HEY, WANKER: WHAT THE FUCK HAS THE ATMOSPHERE FROM 100 MILLION YEARS BEFORE YOUR SPECIES CRAWLED OUT OF THE SWAMPS HAVE TO DO WITH IT? HINT: FUCK ALL YOU MASSIVE TWAT.
As I said: stick to rocks, you know FUCK ALL about biology.
OOOOH - SHIT, THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE WAS DIFFERENT WHEN FUCKING DINOSAURS WERE RUNNING AROUND! WOW - YOUR SCIENCE IS FUCKING CUTTING EDGE THERE!
Truth is: You're an ignorant cunt. You know nothing. Now fuck off, you pathetic scum bag. Stick to rocks, your grasp of biology is PATHETIC.
Hint: model the Time period for ecological and species change over ~900mm years, and guess what? Stupid cunts like you don't understand shit about Science or Darwin. You're a total joke, your grasp of biology is a joke, and you're a total muppet.
Oh, and a hint: I really, really, really don't like your species and you're really, really, really driving me to the extermination option. Cunt.
Hey dumb-dumb, why do you think the carbon-iferous is called the Carboniferous? Hint, look up carboniferous flora. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous And the Devonian is called the "Age of Fishes". And why are those and the Permian are globally infamous for hexa-corals? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugosa ... massive globally distributed coral reefs strata, with abundant marine life, and continents covered in massive unprecedented forests ... all in periods where CO2 was at levels up to 20 times higher that current (so much for that idiotic BS that ocean "acidification" due CO2 will kill all the coral huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification ). All fungi did was expand into a fantastically welcoming and productive niche that was going begging.
If you can't see that CO2 is not harmful to life, that it is high;y advantageous to the environment, and that life LOVES high levels of CO2, and loves heat, which is all very good for humans - or that we have problems that are in fact real human problems, and that we are actually responsible for. And that these problems/threats are far more dangerous than mere prosaic global "climate-change" nothings, then I can't help you from being the hapless cretin you are ... who can't even read a fucking simple graph!
What a laughable clown.
Oh, and one footprint or jaw bone in volcanic ash in Kenya does not equate to a fucking global human industrial civilization for three million years you bloooooody foooooool.
Almost all of the recent 3 million years, of the five million years depicted on that graph, human beings, or rather, hominids, were approximately non-existent over almost all of the face of the earth.
Hear it is again bitch:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Chan...
So you better look up the archaeological evidence on the timing of hominid radiation into Europe and Asia, and look at how recently it occurred in the Americas, as apparently you 'think' it occurred three million years ago. Sorry moron, it didn't
Alternatively you just want to try and pretend that this graph's variability has an anthropogenic origin, and your idiotic attempt to insinuate that it may, just reveals what a desperate, dishonest and point-blank ignorant little schmuck you are.
And we all kinda know high-tech developments didn't even get rolling until William Herschal used optics to discover that non-visible light was real and had real effects, hence your TV remote control.
Given you are an idiot, I'll make it easy for you, there was no industrial economy operating over the course of the period shown on that graph, no, not even a little bit of it, because all of that data came from carbonate mineralized rock cores, not from unconsolidated surface muds laid down since Herschal was a boy at the start of the industrial revolution.
Every bit of that graph is natural global climate variability, and cretins like you have to explain why you thik humans can be 100% blamed, for or even reasonably implicated in mere WEATHER VARIABILITY - since just 1970 or so.
Try not to think about it, you'll just confuse and hurt yourself.
... OK, ... just one more time ... have a good look at it bitch, ... let it soak in thicky, ... never know, you may get an insight into why AGW is utter bollocks ... the global palaeo-geo-data is very clear and emphatic ... humans are not involved in any of this extreme climate variability shown in this graph dumb-dumbs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Chan...
Thanks, just walked into the bear trap.
You made three errors:
#1 Attempting to link the 3,000,000 to hominid development (which no-one did, ever - if you wanted to do a serious critique, you'd need to understand the evolution of mammals. Hint: >200 million years. Since you have no idea about how long mammals have been around, want to know why CO2 has been >500 ppm for the last 3,000,000 years? Hint: your shitty graph that you're waving around ain't explaining it, boy, and your strawman pathetic attempt to link it to homo sapiens development ain't flying either, weak, weak, weak)
#2 Reposting the same graph again and again (no new sources, always a give away for a person following a script). Yeaaah.. we're kinda bored of your one graph now. Got anything else? Nope? Thought not. Stick to rocks, muppet.
#3 You're still confused about the concept of TIME.
200 years.
3,000,000 years.
Yep, you still ain't getting it. Stick to rocks, because you're PIG SHIT IGNORANT of biology and ecology. I'll make it real fucking simple for a man of your limited talents: no-one argues that CO2 variance and so on doesn't happen. No-One. What is measured is the difference between the background "natural" rates and then anything else added after (anthropomorphic). That's how fucking dumb you are. Scientists already cut out the known knowns that we expect.
The rest is due to burning 3,000,000,000 years of biologically stored energy that was transmuted into substances that are stupidly high in energy potential, and which we've been burning like crack fiends for the last 200(+/- 75) years. And you, with your FUCKING PATHETIC grasp of biology and ecology, claims that burning 3,000,000,000 years worth of stored energy has NO EFFECT AT ALL.
And you still ain't getting how TIME works, and how evolution took 200,000,000+ million years on mammals. And your "massive" intellect cannot grasp how incredibly fast changes to the environment won't wipe out species? It's called the 6th extinction event, you massive cock, and it's happening right now.
You're a fucking muppet. Seriously: go die in a fire, and I hope you've never bred, you pathetic, tiny little worm. Your genetics are a pollutant.
Hey dumb-fuck; try to get your head around this, this is Earth's 100% natural and very radical climate variability -this is what earth's climate does all the 'effing time dumb-dumbs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Chan...
For some ignorant hyperventing stroke-clot like you to come along and try to tell me that mere WEATHER NOISE is a climate SIGNAL, when the climate signal has a minimum time-slice resolution of detection of about 500 years duration ... means you get DISMISSED as a brainless quack - immediately!
In science an untestable theory and the absence of evidence, or a signal is called - NOT EVEN SCIENCE!
That graph is the result of physical quantified repeated measurement, in multiple drill cores, in multiple ocean basins, testable, repeatable, cross-checked, cross-correlated, and multiple times verified. It's real-world undisputed hard data. It's the most solid palaeoclimate record data of earth that exits.
For a science to be science it has to have hard-data signals - not noise. We have it that signal of the earth climate variability. No other branch of science can tell you this. That graph shows the actual global palaeoclimate recent history of earth. And that is the only thing that can tell humanity what's normal climate variability for the earth, and what is not normal. Now that should be pretty damn important and fundamental to the whole idiotic AGW claim about climate variability. Without that record no one else knows much of anything about what climate regimes are normal on earth, because even ice-cores cover much too short a period of time.
And the most stand-out thing about that data-plot is that it shows climate is never not changing radically, for very long. The temperature is up and down like a possessed yo-yo. This means the silly term "climate-change" is a misnomer, an oxymoron, because earth's climate and change, are synonymous. You don't get climate on earth, without change.
So when someone say to me that WEATHER NOISE variability is a SIGNAL of CLIMATE CHANGE, and claims that such variability in alleged 'climate change' is being CAUSED BY HUMANS, then this leads to that person being DISMISSED - immediately! Dismissed by geologists who know better from actual hard-data that AGW-clowns do not have a damn clue what they're talking about.
Have another look, this is what the earth really does, naturally, continually, with no humans involved, (and no, I'm not going to stop shoving this in your face until you stop talking complete and utter horseshit about AGW).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Chan...
The fact that a sanctimonious pustulating drop-kick like you pouts and just says to this, "show us another link, cuz dis one's borings, an I kan't reed it!", reveals what a profoundly useless wasted ignorant fuck-up you are.
But being told that wouldn't mean much to someone like you who clearly doesn't know his arse from his elbow and can't stand to be shown the material truth about the natural variability, of what he arrogantly professes to know about, and which you don't even understand at the first-principle level, because a fucking under-achieving little vomit-stain such as yourself you can't even read a fucking graph properly! You're still trying to say its a CO2 plot!
................ EEEEEEEEEDIOT!!!
Element,
Explain your chart to me. Is this the change in temp over a 5 million year timeframe?
Vostok is a station where ice cores are taken.
It's mapping CO2 against temperature, and he's using it wrong. Hint: 5mm years ago, the Antarctic wasn't the same climate. We've had at least one major ice age since. DERP.
Co2 is a false "green" agenda aurgment.
All manipulated data (narrow lines – dark being the mean) vs. actual (satellite & balloon blue/blk sq):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
All global warming “models” vs. actual observations:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png)
Matt Ridley on How Fossil Fuels are Greening the Planet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast110/carbondioxide.gif
You totally blow your own cover when you post a link to the CO2 levels of the entire history of the planet, without realizing that there's been 5 great extinction events during that time. It shows exactly how stupid you are, and exactly how little you understand the science of all of this. So, yes, CO2 and temperature and Oxygen levels of the air are (to the massive surprise of exactly nobody) different over the last few billion years.
Pro-tip: We have vast seams of coal because fungi didn't exist to decay the plant matter at that point and we have vast amounts of oil due to 3 billion years of algae / other organic life. Coal can no longer form. That's it. Fungi are so successful that coal (on any large level) can no longer be produced in our biosphere.
Do you understand this concept? Biology now means No. More. Coal. That's all folks. Gone. Can't be formed now. Past tense. Fucked. Impossible. Deleted as a possible future resource. Use it and it's depleted forever. The stuff you're using was made and now it can no longer be made. And this happened: 300 to 250 million years ago.
TIME: YOU'RE NOT GOOD AT IT.
You might also notice that apart from birds, there's no fucking dinosaurs left either.
Guess what bud, 7>> billion people on planet earth means all the coal and all the oil and all the gas is going to be extracted and consumed - period.
Mentally adjust to reality princess.
oh, and STFU, as you're a pathetic reactive cretin, with no sense of proportion and don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry, you lost all credability a while back.
Go back to the oil rig, we don't give a shit about your shitty ignorance.
Pretty rich coming from a self-demonstrating half-wit. lol
--
It's no such thing you complete fucking moron! Read the label on the right-hand axis! Yet again you've clearly demonstrated you do not a clue what you're talking about. It's plainly labelled as a plot of oxygen-18 isotope, measured within
CARBONATE MINERALS
It has not a damn thing to do with carbon dioxide concentration you utterly ignorant total fucking retard!
Where I asked you above if you could read a graph, well I've got the answer ... you can't! ... lol ... what a bloody clown!
And it's not a feckin measurement from "ice cores" even, it's from rock core you bloody fool. "DERP" indeed!
And look up the term "ice-age", as it's a term coined by geologists, from looking at such rocks btw, and as such, it thus has a strict technical geological definition, as that's how science observation works and progresses dumb-dumb.
Seldom see such a completely incompetent laughable ignorant toss-pot as you are aurora.
lol ... just unbelievable! ... you are DISMISSED.
Nah. You're so dumb, you missed what's actually happening.
Wait. You just claimed that people read CO2 levels from "rock cores". Please, tell me more about why people would live in the arse end of the world, drilling down for ROCK CORES when we could do that on any major continental plate.
Oh, and we find it cute that you're only now admitting that the graph you used was not what you represented it to be. Why are you using a graph with "carbonate minerals" to represent CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Were you (GASP) lying? Hint: I already busted you on this. You can't have it both ways, dear.
No, really. Please explain "rock cores". I'm sure that all those scientists in Antarctica would love to be in Hawaii if they could just drill for "ROCK CORES". I'm sure they don't drill down for ICE CORES WITH CO2 ATMOSPHERE CONCENTRATIONS for any other reason than they're easier to carry. Yep, I've known a lot of scientists who just wanted a holiday on the most remote, bare-assed and desolate piece of rock on this shitty world, surrounded by ice and faked their certificates to require "ICE CORES" instead of going to Italy and getting a nice "ROCK CORE" instead.
Seriously? You're a fucking joke.
YEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. We're gonna want your ID back now. YOU'RE A FAKE AND AN IDIOT. Busted motherfucker, now fuck off and die. Scientist MY ARSE.
p.s. I did warn you that you had mis-read what carbonate minerals meant on that graph. It's about to bitch slap you, you fucking twat. And yes, I have an scientist who did the drilling on the line! She says you're an idiot. And she says the Antarctic research group thinks you're a "pussy arsed egotistical twat". I do apologise for that, they tend to drink a lot down there, especially during Winter.
No dickhead, you said the graph was plotting CO2 - which is of course 100% WRONG, and a kindergarten level error, and shows you have not the faintest clue about that which you wish to discuss.
I on the other hand pointed out that you can not even read a graph and that the graph is plainly plotting OXYGEN 18 isotope, as per the graphs label.
So, fuckwit, are you going to continue to assert that the graph is plotting CO2, or Oxygen 18?
Pick one, and tell me why you chose that one, and compare and contrast how this now relates to your previous comment, here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-26/guest-post-melting-ice-and-free...
You are clearly arguing and asserting that the graph plots CO2, when the label on the graph clearly shows it's plotting OXYGEN 18 from carbonate minerals, because O18 is an excellent palaeo-geo-thermometer. This technique is something that has been done routinely, globally, since the 1950s until today, and ANYONE who knows the very basics of palaoeclimate research would know this.
But you've never even heard of it, have you aurora?
It's because you are totally full of shit, and don't know the first thing about palaeoclimatology, a subject you propose to get preachy to me on.
I D I O T ! I D I O T ! I D I O T ! I D I O T ! I D I O T ! I D I O T ! I D I O T !
Now also look up "carbonate" mineralogy, as that's what's was being sampled to obtain this O18 data, from sedimentary rocks, not from ice-cores, fuckwit. This O18 data has simply been given its Vostock equivalent temperature plot on the other axis, but it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ice-cores, or with CO2 levels!
ZIP!
Frankly aurora, you're the most ignorant and dull-headed moronic commenter on zero hedge. I can't even believe I have to spoon-feed you the fundamentals and differences between a CO2 plot and an O18 plot, for the purposes of such discussion of a topic you are too fucking ignorant to even participate in ... ROFL ... just unbelievable ...............
Oh, and Aurora, honey, I see you also idiotically claimed above that my linked graph is of ice-core isotope studies, and really relates to CO2 levels, and not to carbonate minerals in seafloor rocks. Allow me to drive home how utterly fucking retarded and ignorant you are, as what I said within all of the above was 100% correct.
The page linked below describes the very process I referred to, of measuring the O18 isotopic ratios within carbonate minerals, from marine sediment drill cores, to measure global palaeo-temperature.
Marine isotope stage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_isotopic_stage
And notice at the top of the page they used the same graph that I linked? And note the part that says this
Calcite is a carbonate mineral, and that is what they were measuring the O18 within - just like I said, and just like the graph also was labelled. And all you have done above in this thread it to try to deny and distract from the observational fact that the actual global scientific HARD DATA from geology shows that AGW can not possibly be taken seriously as being caused by humans. Humans have nothing to do with it as Earth is and has been doing this all by itself, long before we came along, and it will keep on doing it, no matter what we do politically or with money.
Because radical climate variability is 100% normal on this planet.
i.e. in other words, the above makes something abundantly clear;
YOU'RE AN IGNORANT HALF-ARSED KNOW-NOTHING FUCKHEAD
Just as I also said earlier.
Q.E.D.
Sigh. Calcium based rocks are a by-product of organic life. No life? No calcium carbonate. I'd expected you to know this simple fact of GEOLOGY.
They died to form it. You getting the picture yet? Nope? Great. Know anything about the 5 great extinctions? Nope, great. And no, radical climate variability isn't normal, it's a feature of extreme disruption; most organic systems tend toward equilibrium (with underlying massive chaotic trends causing said apparent equilibrium).
That's why your graph, over 5,000,000 years has only tiny fluctuations from a base line, even with a fucking ICE AGE in there. Oh, and the death of numerous species, the Sahara turning from a plains savanna to desert and so on. You really don't understand that shitty graph you keep pushing.
Hands up who doesn't even know the basics of "Daisy World"? Yep, that'd be the biological and ecological illiterate fucking dinosaur attempting to debate with me.
Hint: your species is on the line, and you are part of the problem. At this point: I'm all for a cull. You're so ignorant, it's embarrassing to respond to you. Next you'll be claiming that oil can't run out, or that coal is abiotic. I seriously hope you've never bred.
Can't you even fucking read a comment either? From the quoted I gave you above moron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_isotopic_stage
Did you get that this time idiot? He's saying that the calcite is from sea shells, forams, etc. Your idiocy, arrogance and incompetence is boundless, but don't worry, I don't mind pointing this out for everyone, and I intend to keep doing that. I gave you that quote and you completely ignored it, and turned around and tried to tell a geologist, a trained mineralogy specialist, where calcite originates from??! Get fucking real clown, you obviously aren't scientist as any scientist would know you don't ever try talking dopey shit to a geologist about mineralogy.
You are just a clown, and like every thing you say, in other threads, aurora, you are a con-man/clown, you talk shit constantly, but don't know a damn thing - just a hollow man.
And get this, the discovery of global great-extinctions came from GEOLOGY and it resulted in a sub-discipline of geology called, PALAEONTOLOGY, and every geologist on earth spends years learning about palaeontology, and studying and identifying fossils, and mapping their outcrops, and describing their content in minute and tedious details, etc. So you miserable arrogant worm, you only know about great-extinction events via the work of geologists.
Then you have the amazing arrogance to tell a geologist they know nothing about biology, ecology, zoology, palaeo-environments, etc., when you only found out about such palaeo-data and understanding through people like me, informing ignorant cretins like you, about what's been discovered.
Great-extinctions are covered in the first 10 mins of day one of palaeontology 101 fuckhead, I've probably forgotten more about life on Earth than you ever fucking knew you hopeless fucking dumbshit.
And it's because I do understand the behaviors and habit of life on this Earth through time, that I and other geologists hold the views we do about this. Life is anything but fragile, it sticks to this earth like superglue, and I can't think of anything more persistent, ready-for, and capable of unimaginable global changes, climatic, volcanic, comets - whatever! It makes no difference at all, and life on this Earth will also shake humanity off, and move on like we never even happened, when that time comes. Life has literally infinite capacity to create new species, the evidence of this is overwhelming in the rocks, so why the fuck would we give a fig if ANY species goes extinct? Mostly the people who crap-on about "preserving species", and talk hype and nonsense about "great-extinctions" are the people who don't know about or grasp what goes on through geological history. The earth and life on it can recover from almost anything.
In fact, this is such a common view point among geologists familiar with what life does through time, that it's common to hear a geologist say something like, "Life is not endangered, but humans sure are". Because that's what the HARD-DATA is showing us in very emphatic terms.
So we know life is tough as nails, it has to be to even live on, and survive on a planet where this sort of thing is constantly happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_isotopic_stage
So I KNOW this about life, I have seen the hard evidence of it robustness and infinite capacity to adapt, to things you can't even imagine, can't even conceive of, in your profound myopic ignorance.
Thus when some crumby little dick-wad like you comes along and starts preaching errant looney shit at me I don't have a whole lot of time for such dull boring clowns (I've said similar to flak a few times, sorry flak its just true, it's not personal mate, not really, I just find your AGW sermons boring and fantastically fucking stupid), and your mad-cap ignorant theories of AGW, and 500ppm CO2 bio-cide, and acidified oceans, etc. The fucking lot of that shit is pure BUNK, sourced in sky-is-falling idiocy and ignorance. But the amazing thing is, a fuckhead like you can't even be told the basics of the hard-evidence available about this, the evidence that reveals that chappies like you are 100% full of shit.
We will ALWAYS point this out to fools like you, and we will always expose you for the intellectual retards you are. Oh, and I already told you to look up in a geological dictionary for what an Ice-Age is, it's a geological term, not your own imaginary personal definition.
The fact that you are talking about temporary desertification shows you have no grasp of what that graph is telling you. It is saying that deserts and forests and coral reefs wax and wane. They virtually disappear and return ALL THE TIME. That graph means MASSIVE GLOBAL DISRUPTION to the entire biosphere happens every time the earth cycles from one of those peaks on the graph, to one of its troughs.
That's right, constant global biological catastrophe is the NORM for Earth.
Total biosphere disruption, collapse and migration is 100% NORMAL FOR THIS PLANET.
Life has done this almost uncountable times, this is what life is really good at, surviving major environmental disruptions from climate change.
It's climatic and biological stability that are a-typical on this planet, during the past 5 million years. Read that again, as I know you have serious comprehension issues.
That is what is normal for Earth, and it is the very opposite of what the AGW circus-clowns have led humanity to think is normal, they want to pretend the climate changing is a-typical, when the hard data is exactly the opposite to that! It could not be any more opposite! So we can see you AGW clowns are being totally dishonest. You are liars and the science equivalent of snake-oil peddlers. You have deliberately ignored what geology has to say and to show about the Earth's natural variability, as it really is, which is just fucking unforgivable, when the word Geology itself means "the study of the Earth". There is no other science that studies the earth, and you idiots think you can just ignore the scientific data about earth and fucking prosper within science?! You think we're going to put up with more of that idiotic shit from you bunch of intellectually in-bred half-arsed clowns?
Any alleged 'scientist' who does that, I have ZERO respect for, and I know we all feel the same way about that.
It's times like now when life thrives most, and it absolutely loves heat, high CO2 and wet atmospheres. Are you getting a clue yet idiot? How many more fucking times do I have to spell it out for you? Are you really so thick, or is this some sort of comedy gag? What it means is life is vastly more adaptable and resilient than you can possibly grasp, and this includes coral reef, forests, grassland ... deserts? phft! Fuck!! Just visit the the Great Sandy Desert after rains and your see what life can do and how fast it moves, and recovers from unimaginable disruption. The fucking lot, all of life, is constantly appearing and disappearing, on a regular basis, at the same frequency depicted on that graph. The one you STILL don't grasp and think is about CO2. ... gezzus ... ROFL!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Chan...
That is what the Earth and life are really doing, constantly, through geological time ... it NEVER stops this ... stasis in the biosphere and climate is unknown, and hiatus is extremely rare. The only reason why we are here now is because we are in one of those extremely rare periods of relative and brief climatic hiatus, and it's the very reason why we bloomed like a virus, and have cities now.
So when some dopey twat like you tells me "the species is on the line", I can only laugh, really, I laugh, at what a pathetic miserable self-concerned frightened little worm you are.
Yes, we are all fucked when the climate finally takes a strong trend, one way or the other, which it definitely will, and you and me are along for the ride and subject to whatever happens at that point. There's not a driver in Earth's drivers seat.
As Tyler said in Fight Club, "Look at you, you're pathetic! ... let go of the wheel ... LET GO!"
You aren't in control dumb-dumbs, no one is, the climate has us, and when its done with us, we are totally fucked, and none of you fulminating clowns have a fucking hope of survival, ultimately, and nor does the paltry fruit of your nut sack. This isn't about an optimal frame of mind either dickhead, this is about facing the truth of the situation you're in.
NOW MENTALLY ADJUST, AND GET THE FUCK OVER IT, YOU HOPELESS TEDIOUS WORM!
See the label on the right hand axis of the graph.
It's a plot of oxygen 18 isotope ratio variations, in carbonate mineralogy, measured from drill cores taken from marine sediments.
Oxygen isotope ratios are a particularly good indicator of ocean temperature change over thousands of years, of sediment deposition and accretion in layers on the floor of oceans, as its inclusion in the carbonate mineralogy thus formed at any geological moment is strongly the function of the temperature of the earth's macro-climate, at that time of deposition, and mineral formation.
We then correlate this pattern of oxygen isotope flux with observed 'transgressions' and 'regression' cycles of the ocean, over and on to the land, or else falling below the continental shelf margin, and these known and also dated sea level changes, coincide and correlate extremely closely with the oxygen isotope variations, with time.
Thus it shows us that sea level change does occur, due to temperature changes, and that O18 ratios do record those regular cyclic major changes in ocean levels, and in global temperature flux.
So oxygen ratios are an excellent proxy or geo-thermometer, through geological history.
Thus it is a graph of the temperature of the Earth and of sea level responses to temperature variability over just the past 5 million years (a geologial eye-blink).
i.e. this is the actual recorded natural temperature variability pattern of Earth's climate, and it occurs irrespective of humans, or human technology.
Climate-change as an anthropogenic paradigm and policy prescription play-thing of "climate scientists" is clearly an oxymoron, as the Earth's temperature and sea levels NEVER stop changing - ever!
In other words, even if there is a rise or a fall in climate trends over the next 500 years (and of course, as pointed out, one of those two things will happen, because that's totally normal for it to happen, it would be very odd if it were static), then that still would not mean, nor indicate, nor implicate that humans have anything to do with the move observed, because even if humans burning hydrocarbons were not on earth at all today, the Earth can warm entirely naturally by 2 degrees C or more, as it often and routinely does so, all by itself.
Sorry to complicate your 'reality', or to stymie your anti-human-being eco-campaign.
As the graphs show humans are obviously not the natural cause of that systematic dramatic climate change, plus in geological history CO2 variability was NOT the DRIVER of such consistent radical global temperature change cycles.
Yeah, and again, you know nothing about biology. Want to explain what happened to the biosphere in the last 5,000,000 years? Hint: Lots of species died out.
OH, and YOU MASSIVE TWAT: NOTICE HOW YOU'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE REALLY, REALLY SIMPLE CONCEPT THAT: 500 PPM > 280 PPM OVER THE LAST 3,000,000 YEARS AND NOW IT HAS JUMPED +120 PPM IN THE LAST 200?
Yeah, you're a massive ignorant cunt. Oh, and reading your replies: you're not even a fucking scientist, lying cunt. Pathetic faker. I suspect a GED and maybe interning for two weeks on a rig, you've nothing else in experience than that. At the best, you've worked menial shit on a rig, and are claiming geological knowledge.
No-one with a PHD in Geology or better yet, working in it for >10 years, couldn't see the *danger danger* trap I set about fungi / coal strata and not even comment on it. YOU'RE A FAKE, HARRY.
Hey dickhead, "lots of species died out", that happens all the 'effing time you laughable cretin, its called survival of the fittest - ever heard of that?
We are in a great extinction, what of it? I actually don't even fucking care! Life has been through this multiple times, and each time it comes back more diverse and capable than prior. What the fuck are you proposing, that we try to intervene and "bail-out" life? Try and lock it into a fake 'stasis', when its very nature is constant change, or else die? Sorry fool, life's going bye-byes is a natural and essential part of life's development, growth, health and protracted resilience. It isn't fragile, it is damned hardy and persistent as hell. Try weeding a garden and come back in 2 weeks and you'll need to do it again. so you can't scare me with your childish bio-hang-ups and yer closet-greenie act. I'm impervious to the aurora bullshit-storm, or haven't you worked that out yet?
You merely assume (like a naive idiot) that CO2 drives global climate, per the dodgy theory, but there's no geological evidence that it ever has, or does, but there is a lot that shows that it doesn't, and that it lags behind the climate change trend. i.e. climate change drove CO2 rise, not the other way around. That's what we see in the data, the climate changes first, the CO2 plays catch up.
And its doing the same thing now, and it will keep on doing it.
So given it didn't drive the observed past warming, or cooling, I don't really give a toss if CO2 rises 120 ppm, because CO2 has risen and fallen all by itself by much larger values that that, and thousands of times in that past, and the world did not end, and life one Earth did not fall in a heap.
On the contrary, rising CO2 is actually correlated with conditions increasingly favorable to the enhanced survival and flourishing of all species within the ecosystem, and that's a good thing. So if you're trying to scare me with pseudo-'worry' of 500ppm CO2, and rising, sorry bitch, that looks like a pretty damn good thing to me! :D
But if you knew a fucking thing about biology, or Quaternary-Holocene palaeontology and archaeology, you'd know that increasingly effective and efficient human predation pressures, combined with natural climate variability (extended harsh glaciation), is the most likely combined explanation for why so many macro-fauna went extinct within the recent few glacial cycles, especially in the past 40k years, and especially in the past 13k years.
But as you've repeatedly shown that you don't have a fucking clue about any of what you're talking about, then I expect you didn't know that either, so rabbit on about the AGW straw boogie-man.
Consensus is the very anti-thesis of professional science exploration, but it is the natural response of those with no clue and no innovative capacity.
oh, and I've never worked on a 'rig', fortunately I never had to. The word geology directly translates to the study of the Earth, it does not translate to "studying to work for a resources company". That is the application, that is not the science. But why try to set you right about anything fundamental, as you've got it all figured out, doncha dumbass!
ROFL!
But if you knew a fucking thing about biology, or Quaternary-Holocene palaeontology and archaeology, you'd know that increasingly effective and efficient human predation pressures, combined with natural climate variability (extended harsh glaciation), is the most likely combined explanation for why so many macro-fauna went extinct within the recent few glacial cycles, especially in the past 40k years, and especially in the past 13k years.
Finally, you sprung this one as well. I was getting worried, you're almost too ignorant to trip them.
I'm well aware of this: I do love how you attempt to pull it out of the hat as a "surprise" though. And yet, your claim is that homo sapiens can't possibly be causing climate change, and yet you present it (again - you did it before) as evidence that homo sapiens cannot change the global climate.
So, again, your logic fails you. Let's see: Because homo sapiens are quite capable of wiping out entire genus' of mammals and fundamentally changing their habitat (through pre-industrial techniques such as bows, arrows, fire, agriculture etc) and destroying vast numbers (in the billions, if not trillions) of individual mammals leading to the extinction of species, modern (post industrial) homo sapiens cannot possibly change the biosphere they live in through their actions, even when in the year 1900 there were only 1.5billion of them, and now there are 7 billion of them. Oh, and back when the mega-fauna died out, there was less than 100,000,000 of them?
You might want to think through your position a bit better in future, especially in public.
Again you fail basic reasoning (see above, your other little logical fallacy corker is above). That's twice now I've got you with the same logical error. What to go for the Golden Third? You're on a fucking roll, you moron. Oh, and on the third, I get to hunt and eat you. NomNomNom.
Yeah. I'm glad you're not working on a rig, because you're a fucking stupid fool. At this point, I think you're actually a spotty 2nd year University student at some shitty mid-West crappy University, no adult could be this dumb and so easily gutted. Oh, and it's not "macro-fauna", it's "mega-fauna" btw. Ye Gods, you're fucking stupid. Oh, and again: there's the bear trap. You fell right in, stupid.
Watch out, you might get hunted to extinction. There's four more traps waiting for you. Your odds of survival are only 20% if you keep playing this game, that's not Darwinian survival territory.
;.;
Dude, you're making a fool of yourself with your highly emotional outbursts in this thread. You've certainly shattered my confidence in you.
Though it might "stand to reason" that 7 billion mouth breathers and SUVs could "severely" impact the climate, it would equally "stand to reason" that their effects might be completely overshadowed by the impacts of the sun, the earth's massive molten core, and other actors within the biosphere. So your thesis needs to be supported by evidence.
For example, I got a chuckle earlier when reading reports that the west is heading for "record temperatures" ... that is, temperatures are finally about to reach the same peaks seen 50 and 70 years ago (long before 7 billion mouths and SUVs, and who knows how many other instantaneous peaks before detailed temperature records began). Hardly an endorsement of your theory....
Stay the fuck out, this is fight club...
Element is basically making shit up while claiming to be a geologist... the delta O18 stuff from rock cores is a very tough meausure re: timing and time resolution, all data is good but some is better. The Ice Core data is more relevant ~400,000 years of high high resolution data from two locations that correlate remarkably well...
Element also has some non-main stream beliefs about the Universe, which gets very emotional about... All I say is explain the Planck data...
BTW, to even suggest that Climate Scientists who map out Ice sheets using tiny graviational effects on the orbits of two coupled satellites would somehow overlook the sun as a climate agent is simply an assinine remark. Sciience fucking works, listen to what it tells you about our planet and the Universe...
I did not dis ice-core data in any way, nor did I make anything up, you are nit-picking, or else misreading or misunderstanding points in what I've said.This has hardly been a disciplined exchange.
Ice core data is exceptional, the problem is, it provides only a view down a straw, not the all-seeing eye perspective. The 5 million year data provides a wider field understanding of what's been going on. Geos use data sets that encompass way more than that, and tie them all together, to arrive at what we understand. You would be very silly to ignore it.
Mainstream beliefs about the universe, is that what I'm supposed to have? Gee can you point me to a textbook you like. Don't bother, I'm way ahead of you. My only 'emotion' about that was to tell you to shut yer yap and fuck-off so you would stop rudely interrupting conversations with other people - you were being a completely annoying interuptive dick, remember?
Here is the the most comprehensive data on the size, shape and age of the Universe:
http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=Planck_Published_Papers
A nice summary can be found here
http://resonaances.blogspot.fr/2013/03/the-universe-after-planck.html
http://resonaances.blogspot.fr/2013/04/planck-about-inflation.html
and here
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5685
and here
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/21/what-the-entire-universe-is-made-of-thanks-to-planck/
and here
http://blankonthemap.blogspot.de/2013/03/what-planck-has-seen.html
(nice discussion of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect)....
A lot easier than going through all those papers...
And I loved this quote (but he makes it sound too easy):
Outstanding.
Glad you agree...
Here's the catch, the leading scientists who study the climate history of this planet, i.e. the heavyweights, are just as smart and proficient as the guys that measure the size and shape of the Universe...
In other words, for you to suggest that *your* conclusions based on this temperature plot
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
that claims that this plot (almost as impressive as Planck)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_CO2.jpg
and these
http://skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html
are not telling us that some very serious and dangerous is occuring in real time, is the height of Dunning Kruger. You have done absolutely nothing to justify that you know something that the people who did the above work could not figure out. Who the fuck do you think made the graph that you parade around?
Just like fucktards that claim the sun is responsible for what we see. Do you seriously think that the scientists who could do this quality of work would *miss* something as fucking obvious as the sun?