How did the animals survive the Holocene

All the animals we see today survived the Holocene maximum, just 5-7 thousand years ago, when it was much hotter than today. Yes, even the polar bears survived.

Ffs, stop trying to take my money and lifestyle and get back to tending forests or something.

by jacob klein (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, May 5, 2008 at 6:04:32 PM
 

Once again, the monkeys in the climate cage are at it...

"Our current warming commitment practically guarantees abrupt climate change and runaway global warming. We need to remove the excess CO2 from air to make up for past emissions and inevitable future ones."

And thus, we see one of the monkeys in the climate cage ringing the alarmist bell. What is "runaway global warming" for Earth? This wording portrays the world going the way of Venus, which is certainly NOT the case. As has been reported numerous times previous, CO2 averages in past eras were in the upper thousands parts per million (ppm), and the average global temperature for those times was NOT runaway global warming.

 

Source: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm and http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264 .

According to the graph, the Carboniferous and Ordovician Periods represent past geological times when global surface temperatures were as LOW as they are today. Interestingly, though, the Late Ordovician Period (which included an ice age) reported CO2 concentrations of 4,400 ppm - 12 times GREATER than today's concentrations. Was there runaway global warming then?

According to Mr. Gore and Company, Earth should have been exceedingly hot – forget about the fever! Instead, global temperatures were no warmer then they are today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming (e.g., Earth's orbital eccentricities and variations in the Sun's energy output).

"Unfortunately, there isn't enough time to avoid ecosystem collapse, particularly as nature will be removing less CO2 from the air as carbon sinks become saturated, and emitting more as the carbon sinks become carbon emitters as it warms. There is a very inexpensive simple way to immediately cool the Earth: just put a small amount of aerosol into the air to dim the sun."

Lordy, did I read what I just read?!? Has this been cleared with the chemtrails people?!? I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think they'd want a say on that "inexpensive simple way". They're already pissed at the aluminum complexes, barium, zinc, cadmium, and numerous bacteria that are being sprayed daily – just for the fun of it – by governments around the world! Oh, and the chemtrails are linked to 9/11 Truth (of course) - http://www.orbwar.com/wtc-chemtrails.htm .

Once again, the monkey is ringing the bell here. While it is a given the global surface temperatures have increased SLIGHTLY (i.e., less than one degree C) over the past century, the need for radical CO2 emission curbs is a falsity. Yes, there's a need for prudent planning as global growth continues, but not on the order of decades as the UN or some global scientific panels have proposed.

 

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Where the article seems to be interested in "numbers", more than 19,000 American scientists have taken the Global Warming Pledge that states in part:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth, " - http://www.oism.org/pproject/ .

So, you can either listen to the monkeys and start feeding them tons of bananas, OR you can use your uniquely human ability to reason and conclude, "Monkey see, monkey do... monkey pee all over you," and avoid their bell ringing.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1360 comments) on Monday, May 5, 2008 at 6:24:51 PM
 

Cry wolf

Your wrong.  After shoving globle warming down out throts for thirty years poles show that the same nineteen percent agree and that eighty one percent (don't want your socialist agendas) I mean disagree.  The climate modeling is constantly wrong and patheticly often altered to fit the claim.  Globle warming Enthusits are fanatics that will cheat anything to get there agenda forced on people.  You know nothing about climate.  Call us back in 20 years and  Apologize for screwing up our barbecue.

by David C Beach (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 118 comments) on Monday, May 5, 2008 at 8:40:41 PM
 

All three of the above comments miss the point

All three of the above comments miss the point: the current ecosystems are adapted to their specific temperature range.  If that range changes too rapidly, they will collapse.  Of course it has been warmer in the past, and there has been more greenhouse gas in the air too.  By the way, we are putting CO2 into the air over 30 times faster than the PETM.

"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)

by Brad Arnold (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Monday, May 5, 2008 at 11:44:06 PM
 

No one missed the point

I appreciate your wide eyed interest in climate and your sense of urgency is not lost on anyone.  However the problem is that your treatment is based on agenda produced “facts” and infantile climate models.  We are unable at current to produce a model that predicts accurately anything.  All past models when compared to reality of the last hundred years where found to be completely wrong and therefore useless.  To add to this the current weather was not predicted and all the “consensus experts” had to concede that we are going into a cooling period.  Last: the Mensa test was not to challenging. 

by David C Beach (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 118 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 9:09:54 AM
 

DB: Please share that speed writing and editing course

you must have taken since your previous post! (Below.) It's a miracle! Still not perfect, but it's as if two different people wrote these posts, yet they are both under your name!

Cry wolf

Your wrong.  After shoving globle warming down out throts for thirty years poles show that the same nineteen percent agree and that eighty one percent (don't want your socialist agendas) I mean disagree.  The climate modeling is constantly wrong and patheticly often altered to fit the claim.  Globle warming Enthusits are fanatics that will cheat anything to get there agenda forced on people.  You know nothing about climate.  Call us back in 20 years and  Apologize for screwing up our barbecue.

by Kathlyn Stone (33 articles, 204 quicklinks, 19 diaries, 557 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 9:24:10 AM
 

It's incredible isn't it!

It depends on my mood and the level of coffee in the cup.  Plus if I go on a nice ride on my scooter that helps too.

by David C Beach (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 118 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 9:47:45 AM
 

Ah. That explains everything.

Coffee works wonders for me too!

by Kathlyn Stone (33 articles, 204 quicklinks, 19 diaries, 557 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 11:25:49 AM
 

Go ahead and dismiss it...

Let me reiterate your most recent post: climate models mean nothing, we know nothing.

Anybody can dismiss anything, but any rational conversation should start with acceptance of science fact:

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming is happening. Their three key conclusions are:

* It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring.

* The probability this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%.

* The probability this is caused by human emissions is over 90%.

The pro-carbon lobby is looking for gaps in climate science the way creationists are questioning Darwinian evolution. These people are no "skeptics". Real skepticism, inherent in science, makes no prior assumptions and is evidence based. The view of the atmosphere as a legitimate open sewer for human-generated carbon gases, makes the prior assumption no anthropogenic global warming takes place, then proceeds to look for errors, real or imaginary, in climate science. --Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Australian National University

by Brad Arnold (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 6:35:23 AM
 

Ah... the point being made is immaterial

"All three of the above comments miss the point: the current ecosystems are adapted to their specific temperature range. If that range changes too rapidly, they will collapse."

What empirical proof do you have of this? Does the geologic record support this assertion that a change of say 3 to 8 degrees C over several hundred years, instead of several tens of thousand or even thousands of years, will lead to an ecosystem collapse on a global scale? Do you mean that some species will fail and others will flourish or will all species fail? It seems like you're arguing for the latter. I think it likely that some species will fail yet some (probably many more based upon the geologic record) will flourish, but I certainly don't believe that there will be a global ecosystem collapse.

Earth has been impacted in the past by truly global and catastrophic events. The majority of these events were acute, having had their changes realized in hours and days - not centuries or millenia. In each instance, though, the impacted species either adapted and continued or... failed. Life sucks, but that's the nature of the evolutionary beast. The geologic record does not show that recovery from a collapse is not possible; rather, it consistently reports that recovery is assured.

The question, then, is what form will that recovery take and how, if at all, can humanity influence that recovery. I think it wildly presumptuous to think that we - with today's technology - can influence the planet's weather systems and inherent cycles that have been established, tested, and verified for over more than four billion (with a "B" there) years.

This question is the more important point to make here and not that some global ecosystem collapse is assured. Look at it like this, humanity has been present in perhaps two or three frames of an eight billion year-long film. If you think that what you see in these few frames will remain unchanged throughout the remainder of the film, you are sadly mistaken. If you think that what we do here in these frames are going to change the subsequent several frames drastically, you're fooling yourself.

As I continue to assert, one good volcanic eruption or a decent-sized asteroid impact will push the worry of human-based carbon inputs to the farthest corners of the mind; now, THAT is assured.

"Of course it has been warmer in the past, and there has been more greenhouse gas in the air too. By the way, we are putting CO2 into the air over 30 times faster than the PETM."

The CO2 component to global climate change is miniscule and focusing on it while neglecting the number ONE contributor by excessive magnitudes - water vapor - is silly. The carbon cycle is just that - a cycle, which is intimately linked to other cycles like water (call it Gaia or Bob – its irrelevant). In fact, part of the carbon cycle is the ebb and flow of natural sequestration observed in the temperate latitudes with the changing seasons. Global atmospheric carbon actually decreases in the spring and summer months with the resulting vegetation growth and uptake of carbon and increases in the fall and winter months with the vegetation becoming dormant with the shedding of its biomass into the environment.

Just using logical deduction, then, wouldn't increased global temperatures extend the range of year-round vegetation growth, which in turn would result in the sequestering of more carbon on a yearly frequency? Wasn't there something similar scene to this in past geologic time periods - a prolific explosion in the numbers and sizes of species due to an abundance of plant diversity and range of habitats? Hmmm... yeah there was. And wasn't that carbon present in the form of atmospheric CO2 at concentrations far in excess of today's? Hmmm... yeah it was. And was man around to cause those grandly elevated levels? Hmmm... no, but... but... dude... we're putting so much into the air!

Baloney! Human-based carbon emissions are sponch compared to other natural carbon inputs - , http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm .

With respect to PETM or the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that existed during a period of intense global warming around 55 million years ago, I'm uncertain as to where you're getting the ludicrous value of humans emitting CO2 into the air over 30 times faster than the PETM. At its peak, an estimated 2,000 billion tons of carbon were released into the atmosphere during PETM - http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzp.html . Using the values referenced in the linked human-based carbon emissions of 6.5 billion tons of carbon, how do we arrive at the claimed 60,000 billion tons (i.e., 30 times the PETM)...? Well, it could be fuzzy math!

The science involved in global warming works well when looking at past frames. However, its predictive powers are limited when it attempts to look forward into the film. Before running around and claiming the sky is falling, we have the time to better refine our ability to look forward.

My concern is that if we commit to drastic action today, we may very well be regretting it in the future. If you don't understand what I mean, just look at the "save the trees by using plastic instead of paper bag" commitment... or... the "move to more energy efficient lighting by introducing more quantities of toxic compounds into the environment" approach.

Take the time today to do the more correct thing tomorrow.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1360 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 9:13:57 PM
 

One last attempt to make you understand

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Bagdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them."  --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

by Brad Arnold (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 12:39:40 AM
 

Thanks, Brad. Re: the naysayers

The reaction is purely predictable and  in keeping with the premise of this article and study from Norway.

by Kathlyn Stone (33 articles, 204 quicklinks, 19 diaries, 557 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 8:05:54 AM
 

no worry

If you have been visiting the USGS maps as I have for the last 3 yrs, you'd know that the quakes have grown abundantly and the Volcanoes are erupting at an alarming rate. Chileans felt one this past week and that volcano hadn't erupted for 10,000 yrs. They spew more poisonous gases than anything else into our air.

Then we have Apophus heading for our atmosphere, that is sure to scale a few thousand miles of earth crust off the globe. Shh, don't talk about it and it will go away. haha.

Then I read about the Russian who literally LIVES in the Syberian Artic and has found METHANE spewing from under the MELTING Ice in the upper Syberian region(like geysers, he claims). Methane, the toxic substance it is, will damage our air so fast that even Tom Murphy's graphs won't show up! (Can't see anything on them--blank as the look in my face!).

I don't know if yall took lithosphere and hydrosphere 101 in college, but the earth warms and cools and warms and cools and wipes out humans, plants and animals every 10,000 to 50,000 yrs and has been doing just that for millions of years. Thanks to the ICE CORE measurement devices, we now know what the earth has been doing all this time. Except, please note, that increase(as in never seen before), CO2, HAS indeed expedited the warming and changed the pattern to be much worse (more pink crap in the ice than ever before). Oh, what's that pink crap, alas, uranium deposit? Hmmm, that stuff Einstein warned us(letter to FDR) "not using it even for energy"? Now we use it in every bomb we burn or throw AND for ENERGY!  Ahh heck, what did Einstein know. Bill O'Reilly is much more of a brain. That' why Billo invented E=MC2. Doncha know. Sheesh. The ignorance baffles me sometimes!

Brad, these posters that don't believe you have been programmed by the "message force multipliers" and can't acknowledge anything BUT what these "message force multipliers" tell them to believe. If ya don't know, Bush's memo was revealed and it stated that they employed "message force multipliers" to spread false information in support of the Adminsitration goals. MSM, that is, Texas Tea recruits, War forecasters, and shibboleth to the 9th degree.

Amazing all these scientists on this thread that post their expertise w/o a shred of science background debunking science that has long been written in text books. Goes to show, US education is rightfully ranked 23rd in the world. Plain to see right here in some of the posts. We will warm up, most life as we know it, will end. Nothing will grow and the animal life that survives will ADAPT and become a different type species. Humans that survive will ADAPT and the lungs will begin to change, the skin will change and all in all, adaptation will alter LIFE as we know it. Then, the planet will FREEZE (as it has in the past million yrs), and plants will change even moreso, altering food sources, and kill most species (us too) off. It happens and has been happening for billions of yrs. We just have a tool now to measure it, The ICE CORE device.

But don't worry, the quakes happening will destroy most of us before the planet warms us too much and definitely before the next phase of freezing.

Go to the USGS site and see feryerselves regarding the quake activity. Amazing how it has ramped up across the center of the US. I've never seen it so bizzzzy and as I stated, I bean wauchen it along time. heh heh heh heh heh.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 213 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 1:24:29 PM
 

Message force multipliers

This is depressing.

In one corner you have Neocon lackeys foaming at the mouth over taqiya (these geniuses just discovered ancient counter intelligence training in the Koran). In the other it's all about the message force multipliers. Newsflash: propaganda since the beginning of time has always employed this.

Quit acting like it's some kind of new tactic that must be explained in detail. Doing so inflates the tactic from lame stunt to Tokyo Rose. It's not a frumious bandersnatch, I promise.

by Intelitary Milligence (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 1:18:35 AM
 

Sunlight has already grown dim

because of all the particulate matter in the atmosphere.  The sun is the ultimate food source for the planet. Making sunlight dimmer still will result in catastrophic failures of agriculture, life in the sea- you name it. We need to do less- not more.

by Laudyms (0 articles, 702 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 344 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 3:10:30 PM
 

Now, this is global cooling

Dimming sunlight due to particular matter would increase the Earth's albedo, resulting in an eventual cooling of the avergar global temperature.  In fact, this was the environmental worry du jour in th early 1970s, followed by acid rain in the 1980s, and ozone depletion in the 1990s - http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm . 

Global warming is the first environmental worry out of the gate in the 21st century!

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1360 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 9:19:43 PM
 

Calling other contributions of CO2 irrelevant is dishonest

I mean we might as well invade Iran the next time Saudi Arabia attacks, again (ask Robert Baer).

Truly, the most glaring problem with global warning is its unitary, Earth = blob, one size fits all form.

By the time global warning engages it's photon torpedoes, accelerated or delayed local warming and cooling cycles will wreck individual ecosystems on their own completely out of step with CO2.

I hate being right. 

Repitan por favor:

There's no such thing as TEH ENVIROMNENT.

There are many environments.

There are many cycles.

There are many climates.

There are many changes.

There are many ecosystems.

Find a pluralistic model and we'll talk. Until then maybe you will notice that many scientists wanted their names removed from the IPCC report.

by Intelitary Milligence (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 1:35:09 AM