Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

High Seas wrote:

Okie - you're a geologist by training, right? Seems to me that water still covers most of the earth, but even in pangaea/panthalassa days at least some land was to be seen above the waters....

Correct. It has been a long time since we covered that in school, and my career did not deal with that issue, so I would need to review the current theories as anyone can, but the short answer is --- you are correct, and I think limestone is found within the geologic formations of virtually all current land masses, and anywhere limestone is found, water once covered.

Okie - you're a geologist by training, right? Seems to me that water still covers most of the earth, but even in pangaea/panthalassa days at least some land was to be seen above the waters....

Anyway, this is a wonderful article from the latest Economist:

http://www.economist.com./world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10311405&CFID=784585&CFTOKEN=7416ff72f08dd724-0350E5CF-B27C-BB00-0143559B54AF33DD

Quote:

Molten iron raining down like cowpats; ice floes at New Orleans. The weather of 1783 was an extraordinary case of sudden climate change driven by atmospheric gases ....

http://www.economist.com./world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10311405&CFID=784585&CFTOKEN=7416ff72f08dd724-0350E5CF-B27C-BB00-0143559B54AF33DD
...
"AROUND mid-morning on Pentecost, June 8th of 1783, in clear and calm weather, a black haze of sand appeared to the north of the mountains. The cloud was so extensive that in a short time it had spread over the entire area and so thick that it caused darkness indoors. That night, strong earthquakes and tremors occurred."

Thus begins the eyewitness account of one of the most remarkable episodes of climate change ever seen. It was written by a Lutheran priest, Jon Steingrimsson, in the Sida district of southern Iceland. At nine o'clock that morning, the earth split open along a 16-mile fissure called the Laki volcano

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/war/peace.htm
The Paris Peace Treaty (1783)
…
Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
…
Article 10:
The solemn ratifications of the present treaty expedited in good and due form shall be exchanged between the contracting parties in the space of six months or sooner, if possible, to be computed from the day of the signatures of the present treaty. In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto.

Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.

Foxfyre, to expand the subject of history to CO2, it has been several times higher in geologic history than current levels. And a graph in this site seems to indicate levels over 470 ppm from ice cores of ice formed during the 1940's, which is something new that I had not seen before. Is this credible? One would need to extend the graph to current levels of around 380 ppm. It would seem the curves would follow warmer temperature swings. Anyway, current levels are low when compared to prehistoric times.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

okie wrote:

Foxfyre, to expand the subject of history to CO2, it has been several times higher in geologic history than current levels. And a graph in this site seems to indicate levels over 470 ppm from ice cores of ice formed during the 1940's, which is something new that I had not seen before. Is this credible? One would need to extend the graph to current levels of around 380 ppm. It would seem the curves would follow warmer temperature swings. Anyway, current levels are low when compared to prehistoric times.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

I don't know if it is the case with all of them, Okie, but of those 400+ scientific AGW skeptics mentioned in the last few days, I know at least some have concluded that CO2 levels increase some time AFTER global warming has occurred rather than CO2 levels apparently preceding/causing global warming. And yes, more than a few have written notations of much higher CO2 levels in the ancient past. This certainly factors into their skepticism. On the grand scale of things, "record temperatures since we have been keeping records" isn't even a blink by which to judge long range forecasts of climate change.

I was reading yesterday that a large asteroid is on a possible collision course with Mars. It isn't the size of a 'global killer' but what if it was and was aimed at the Earth? Now that is a very real potential threat that occurs naturally, but which is something we might actually have a shot to do something about if we have our brightest and best working on it. I'd rather see our science dollars and manpower going into things like that.

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:

Foxfyre, to expand the subject of history to CO2, it has been several times higher in geologic history than current levels. And a graph in this site seems to indicate levels over 470 ppm from ice cores of ice formed during the 1940's, which is something new that I had not seen before. Is this credible? One would need to extend the graph to current levels of around 380 ppm. It would seem the curves would follow warmer temperature swings. Anyway, current levels are low when compared to prehistoric times.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

I don't know if it is the case with all of them, Okie, but of those 400+ scientific AGW skeptics mentioned in the last few days, I know at least some have concluded that CO2 levels increase some time AFTER global warming has occurred rather than CO2 levels apparently preceding/causing global warming. And yes, more than a few have written notations of much higher CO2 levels in the ancient past. This certainly factors into their skepticism. On the grand scale of things, "record temperatures since we have been keeping records" isn't even a blink by which to judge long range forecasts of climate change.

I was reading yesterday that a large asteroid is on a possible collision course with Mars. It isn't the size of a 'global killer' but what if it was and was aimed at the Earth? Now that is a very real potential threat that occurs naturally, but which is something we might actually have a shot to do something about if we have our brightest and best working on it. I'd rather see our science dollars and manpower going into things like that.

I would suggest that instead of investing money into trying to stop a cosmic collision we instead organize large "prayer groups" and instil a theocracy in the USA. If an asteroid were to his earth it would obviously be because God was pissed at us. We should take whatever steps will put us on God good side again.

okie wrote:

More than cute. It is pointing out the obvious, that perhaps global warmers that want us to believe the status guo is normal still do not understand or they do understand but think the rest of us are naive.

AGW is pretty far from a claim that the entire earth was covered in water at once for a short period of time.

The crowbar that spreads: evidence.
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:

More than cute. It is pointing out the obvious, that perhaps global warmers that want us to believe the status guo is normal still do not understand or they do understand but think the rest of us are naive.

AGW is pretty far from a claim that the entire earth was covered in water at once for a short period of time.

The crowbar that spreads: evidence.
K
O

Apart from biblical accounts, we can disregard that if you want for this discussion, geology pretty much proves water has covered most of the earth, if not all of it at various times throughout geologic history.

By the way, what evidence do you have that the earth is or would be static in terms of climate, without the impacts of man?

If an asteroid was about to hit, I guarantee you, maporsche, alot of people would be praying, and alot of them that were not even religious up to that point.

Why don't they shorten the working day, reduce the number of working days in a week and have longer holidays.

That would reduce emissions wouldn't it?

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:

More than cute. It is pointing out the obvious, that perhaps global warmers that want us to believe the status guo is normal still do not understand or they do understand but think the rest of us are naive.

AGW is pretty far from a claim that the entire earth was covered in water at once for a short period of time.

The crowbar that spreads: evidence.
K
O

How about, the entire INHABITED part of the Earth?

Man originally lived in water (do your own searches on Elaine Morgan) and is still a quasi aquatic creature which likes to bathe daily and mainly still lives, by preference at least, near water.

They say that 80% of the military targets in the world are within range of the guns of those Iowa class ships if they ever refit them, and that's without even talking about sabot rounds.

The inhabited part would have been the part that anybody knew anything about 4000 years ago. Moreover, for the most part, the water didn't go anywhere; it's still there. We're simply living for the most part on areas which would have been viewed as plateaus before the flood and would have been sparsely if at all inhabited.

I'm not seeing a point in this post. What on earth are you trying to say?

okie wrote:

If an asteroid was about to hit, I guarantee you, maporsche, alot of people would be praying, and alot of them that were not even religious up to that point.

I'll also garantee you that many people who have lived religious lives would break free of religious law and speand their last remaining days living as they wanted, not as they were instructed.

In short, many "believers" would find their time in prayer to be a futile and worse a waste of the remainder of their time alive.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:

If an asteroid was about to hit, I guarantee you, maporsche, alot of people would be praying, and alot of them that were not even religious up to that point.

I'll also garantee you that many people who have lived religious lives would break free of religious law and speand their last remaining days living as they wanted, not as they were instructed.

In short, many "believers" would find their time in prayer to be a futile and worse a waste of the remainder of their time alive.

T
K
O

I doubt it very seriously, Diest. What were the folks doing on those planes before they crashed on 911? I don't think they were living it up.

And many an atheist have become religious in foxholes too, Diest.

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm not seeing a point in this post. What on earth are you trying to say?

That the story of the Noachean flood is a true story of a cosmic/solar-system-wide disaster and that the people who wrote the story down wrote it down the way THEY understood it and not the way YOU would understand such a thing, 4000 years later.

gungasnake wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm not seeing a point in this post. What on earth are you trying to say?

That the story of the Noachean flood is a true story of a cosmic/solar-system-wide disaster and that the people who wrote the story down wrote it down the way THEY understood it and not the way YOU would understand such a thing, 4000 years later.

Oh, I see. So the previous post was your evidence then? You didn't provide any evidence.

T
K
O