9
   

Experts Concluse that Asteroid Impact Wiped Out Dinosaurs

 
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 09:06 am
@parados,
You went over my head with that one. "Cant" as it means that we are technologically unable to dam the Colrado River? Im uncertain what your driving at.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 09:22 am
@farmerman,
Since the geological record shows that the Colorado river cuts through rock wouldn't that show that humans can't dam the river with a rock like substance?


The historical record for warming appears to be

something occurs to start warming
CO2 increases
the increase in CO2 acting as a feedback increases warming
Some event occurs to cause cooling
the cooling decreases CO2.

You are arguing that because 1 didn't occur that means 2 will no longer cause 3.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 01:05 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Since the geological record shows that the Colorado river cuts through rock wouldn't that show that humans can't dam the river with a rock like substance?
Almost anything would be ultimately possible , even though it may be incredibly stupid to do. I guess you lost me on your logic, if anyone can help, Ill be glad to listen

You seem stuck on a "feedback loop" and its not necessarily so. CO2 gets incorporated into sediment and living tissue. The temperature increases (due possibly to several solar cycles that act in tandem or in sequence). CO2 is released into the atmosphere and incorporated into the polar ice cap where we know the details of tempereature from Oxygen 16/oxygen 18 ratios.

The planet is a huge CO2 "sink", (thats why CO2 sequestration is a hot flavor of the month) when the temperature changes (upward , CO2 is a following indicator. That is merely a fact that the "Anthropogenic Global Warming folks" want to dismiss and cant.
I USED TO BE A REALLY STRONG ANTHRO... GLOBAL WARMING GUY UNTIL I SAW SOMWE OF RICHARD ALLEYS DATA ON THIS.
If you can explain why CO2 follows warming, Im all ears. (try not to use any more fractured logic lessons, they dont work on me cause your analogies are invalid)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:58 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Since the geological record shows that the Colorado river cuts through rock wouldn't that show that humans can't dam the river with a rock like substance?


This is an incredibly silly attempt at analogy. Damning the Colorado river involves building a structure which is maintained, and through which the river does not flow freely. Both the Hoover Dam and the Glen Canyon dam control the flow-through of the river's water, in well-maintained conduits leading to turbines, which are themselves maintained.

Now, if someone were to leave both dams with open flow through structures, and no maintenance, i'm sure that after a few thousand years (at the fastest), they'd no longer be there.
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 05:10 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Damning the Colorado river involves building a structure


Nah. All I gotta do is stand there and say a few choice cuss-words.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 05:22 pm
Well . . . that's one method . . .
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 09:08 pm
farmer, I don't think Richard Alley would agree with your interpretation of his work.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/richard-alleys-orbital-and-climate-dance/
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 10:54 pm
@MontereyJack,
well yes he3 does s a matter of fact. This is out of that article
Quote:
prove that greenhouse gases exert a warming effect. They don’t trigger the warmups or chills, but the gases explain why some climatic changes are global (the gases mix uniformly around the planet) while others are not.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:49 pm
Are you lot saying Global Warming killed the dinosaurs or that the Colorado river drowned them all because it didnt have a dam yet ?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 12:11 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Now, if someone were to leave both dams with open flow through structures, and no maintenance, i'm sure that after a few thousand years (at the fastest), they'd no longer be there.


See , . I was trying to make some sense out of Parado post. SO, there was my problem.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 02:06 pm
Ionus, no, we're not. Are you?
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 02:28 pm
Farmer, what the skeptics seem to think climate scientists say is not what they actually do.
The lessons derived from ice cores is that over the last six glacial-interglacial cycles, when natural processes, not human, acted on the atmosphere, CO2 ranged from about 180ppm during an ice age to 280-300ppm after things warmed up in the interglacial. CO2 never in those 600K years never got near the current approx. 385 pmm.
The view is that probably orbital cycles triggered ice ages and interglacials but were not of themselves sufficient in magnitude to produce the whole change, and that things like albedo change and CO2 change fed back in to increase the effect.

CO2 was a trailing feedback. HOWEVER, what is happening today is a totally different process than climate change resulting from orbital cycles, so there is no reason to think that it will follow the same course. There's no Milankovitch cycle variation going on. Rather CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are a leading indicator, not a trailing one. They are increasing due to human activity--we know that both from simple math--we know how much CO2 we produce every year, we know what the oceans (the main rapidly acting carbon sink) and the biosphere sequester every year, and we know that's what's left is still more than the atmospheric increase every year (and we're pretty sure that the other equilibrium processes that have kept CO2 constant over the last few hundred thousand years operate on the scale of centuries to thousands of years). And we know it from the changing C12/C13/C14 ratios in the atmosphere, calculated from a variety of sources, which changes are characteristic of dumping fossil fuel carbon (higher C12, lower C13, no C14) into the air.

Alley, incidentally, in that video, makes the rather cogent point that what we have done in a hundred years or so, is returned to the atmosphere a significant portion of the carbon that was sequestered in plant material over millions of years, which sequestration was part of the process that kept CO2 levels from rising above 280 ppm or so.

There's no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More of it in the atmosphere will raise the temperature. What's happening now is different from what went on in ice age/interglacial change, so climate isn't following the same trajectory.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 02:38 pm
Farmer, a good summary of research, with references to relevant papers, that show anthropogenic sources for rising CO2

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

and rising CO2 by basic physics is going to be a forcing.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 04:18 pm
@MontereyJack,
Ive seen tree ring C13/C12 data and there is increedible amount of "smear" that evades the technique for detection. They use laser ablation to cut the rings and the ratios bothered me. CO2 has been as high as 5000ppm in several geological ages . The Permian was as great as 6500ppm. and we are concerned about these 360ppm numbers. As far as we know CO2 has been rising in recent cores (since the time around the "little Ice Age" and the climate has been fluctuating.
THERE are a couple of cycles that , to my critical eyes that have NOT been factored in

1Typical Ocean turnover (about an 800yr cycle)

2 Dansgaard Escher Cycle (about a 1500 year cycle)

3The 28 year short cycle of susnspot activity -The susnpot activity seems to me to be more ion the money than is any CO2 data.

I love what John Christie (Queensland U)
has said about CO2. "Why would anyone think that CO2 levels
influence climate, It never has before"

I understand that the Chief Scientist at HAdley Center has resigned and so has the head of IPCC. and a new director of IPCC has been installed. I think his first activity should be to return the organization to some sense of scientific credibility before they argue the POV about CO2


Ive been a critic ever since the time everyone had claimed that this was "settled science". Whenever I hear that statement I always think about the similar statement "Its not about the money"
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 04:36 pm
@farmerman,
PS we are at the minimum sunspot activity from the last 28 year cycle.

Every time CO2 measurements are made from ice cores, Ive never seen an equilibrium diffusion measurement for C12/13 whenever they do look at subsampling the cores, they always do a detailed measure of O16/18 upon which are based the temperature calculations.

I have no dog in this fight but Ive read enough from Embrie and Le Roux and Christie to suspect the science completely, and the geophysics supports a multi layered earth -sun coupling of sequential cycles that I know for a fact that IPCC had jumped to somne invalid conclusions. We are indeed in a Malenkovitch cycle. We always are. Ive yet to see IPCC dispute the overlapping of geophysical axial cycles, even though much of the climate change data shows itself to be cyclic.

Im saddened as to how this entire argument has gfotten away from actual science and has become politicized (ON BOTH SIDES).
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 05:20 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Ionus, no, we're not. Are you?
Very Happy Very Happy I shouldnt laugh...you are trying hard.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 05:32 pm
@MontereyJack,
Please ignore Wallamaloo Willy above. He is turning into a JTT or another spendi as we speak. (Although Id say that spendi has a few hundred IQ points over Wallamaloo)
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 05:41 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Wallamaloo Willy
Very Happy Very Happy Ouch !! That really hurt my feelings....are you happy now, you successful bully ? Country bumpkins dont usually mention IQ...it all turns out horribly wrong if they do...
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 05:43 pm
@Ionus,
I like being a country bumpkin, beats bein an asshole like you.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 05:46 pm
For shame FM . . . that's a gross insult to otherwise unoffending assholes everywhere . . .
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2019 at 11:29:25