PDA

View Full Version : Can humans survive?



Gerarddm
05-06-2013, 03:45 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/05/06/the-sixth-mass-extinction-is-upon-us-can-humans-survive.html



Free All Planetary Prisoners!

Boston
05-06-2013, 04:26 PM
Your link didn't work for beans but I'd have to agree the thread tittle is a valid question


see
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://phys.org/news196489543.html&sa=U&ei=xh6IUcnMNpKgqwHz0IDgDw&ved=0CCgQFjAE&sig2=nUb9igAm1fDF3XqXgleaSw&usg=AFQjCNFVRFMixp-Oe6ejLQiD878BuxGesw

The simple reality is that 4~6C rise in temp, which we are very very very likely to see sometime between 2035 and 2050 represents the end of life as we know it. Or more accurately life as we know it for millions of years.

the Cambrian extinction resulted in a dead period of about 50 million years
the KT boundary extinction resulted in a dead period of about 30 million years

we're altering the atmospheric chemistry about 1250 times faster than in the Cambrian extinction and about 2500 times faster than in the KT boundary extinction

which means our chances of the planet "not" going into a prolonged period of dormancy for oh say 30 to 50 million years is slim to none. In the end, we're extinct before the end of this century

skuthorp
05-06-2013, 04:59 PM
Even if you're wrong about that it's not going to be pleasant. And if you are we've just accelerated the natural cycle. I don't know or understand enough of the science to judge. 30-50 million years should be long enough for a good fumigation.

LeeG
05-06-2013, 05:01 PM
What agents of change we be!

My vote is a Manhattan Project to develop machine intelligence so that a Matrix like world can continue on until the next manifestation of sentient biological beings show up...to be used as food.

LeeG
05-06-2013, 05:05 PM
Your link didn't work for beans but I'd have to agree the thread tittle is a valid question


see
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://phys.org/news196489543.html&sa=U&ei=xh6IUcnMNpKgqwHz0IDgDw&ved=0CCgQFjAE&sig2=nUb9igAm1fDF3XqXgleaSw&usg=AFQjCNFVRFMixp-Oe6ejLQiD878BuxGesw

The simple reality is that 4~6C rise in temp, which we are very very very likely to see sometime between 2035 and 2050 represents the end of life as we know it. Or more accurately life as we know it for millions of years.

the Cambrian extinction resulted in a dead period of about 50 million years
the KT boundary extinction resulted in a dead period of about 30 million years

we're altering the atmospheric chemistry about 1250 times faster than in the Cambrian extinction and about 2500 times faster than in the KT boundary extinction

which means our chances of the planet "not" going into a prolonged period of dormancy for oh say 30 to 50 million years is slim to none. In the end, we're extinct before the end of this century

Why the end of this century? There will probably be a well established declining trend in the population but extinct? There are so many other animals we can extinct before us.

Boston
05-06-2013, 05:17 PM
Its simple Lee

I didn't say end of this century
I said middle to next twenty years or so ;-)

Changes in the atmospheric chemistry IE radically increasing levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 must result in a warming atmosphere. The rate of change in temp is directly related to in change in atmospheric CO2. If you study the paleo climate record you can clearly see a direct link to these rates of change, Increase the rate of change and you decrease the size of the animals that survive the event.

In the High Permian ( KT boundary extinction ) It took about 1 million years for the siberian traps to release enough CO2 to raise world average temp by about 4C, which triggered a methane hydrate release which killed off everything down to about 2 lbs. Today we've altered temps by about 2C between 1800 and today. Thats 2500 times faster, and that rate is exponentially increasing with our "growth based economics systems, the hydrate sinks are already starting to let go. A 100 fold increase in release just last year, which was a 100 fold increase from the year before that, and its not just one event that I'm using to predict change. There were many extinctions all of which involved rate of atmospheric change.

yup you can rest assured you've got a front row seat.

Its really quite simple if you have the right background in the sciences to put the puzzle together. We're screwed. and we're screwed a lot sooner than you might think.

Once again I'd estimate between 2035 and 2050 we hit the magical + 4~6 C that guarantees our end.

The calculations to reach that conclusion are actually quite simple.

S.V. Airlie
05-06-2013, 05:25 PM
The human race has been trying to commit mass suicide for hundreds of years. At some point in the future it will be successful

LeeG
05-06-2013, 05:26 PM
I understand the rate of change difference and that it represents a tipping point my question is why extinction that fast. Seems to me there could still be a party on the Titanic in the last 30 minutes so there could still be a billion people on the planet by the end of the century.

elf
05-06-2013, 05:36 PM
How would they eat under those conditions, even if they survived?

Sorry. The gig has been known to be up around here (where people have been researching it for the last 35) for at least 20 years.

It amazes me that any scientist doesn't scream. They all whisper, but I've heard them repeatedly at public lectures.

Boston
05-06-2013, 05:38 PM
No Lee the mechanisms don't really allow for that

The oceans go aerobically stratified and instead of producing 3/4 or so of our oxygen they produce about the same amount of ammonia sulfur and methane, which kills off the trees and land forms of photosynthesizing life which produce the other 1/4 or so of oxygen

its seen again and again in the paleo climate record

The atmosphere goes devoid of oxygen in a relatively short time. In this case a very very short time. No life, or more accurately no aerobic life will survive

The High Permian is pretty well studied extinction event, it took about 40k years to screw up the atmosphere in that one, but the preliminary change in that atmosphere was 2500 times slower and there's a direct relationship between the rates of change. 40k divided by 25k = 16 thousand years. which seems like we've got a long time to go. But extrapolate out the exponential increase in that rate of change since the beginning of the industrial age and you come up with something in the vicinity of 20 to 40 years.

thing to remember is we only need maybe one or two more degrees and the system goes haywire

skuthorp
05-06-2013, 05:38 PM
If you take 8 of the top 11 threads at my last look as an example maybe we don't deserve to. OTOH the other species do, but then that's life, (and death).

seanz
05-06-2013, 05:40 PM
We have survived all this time regardless of weather or not we deserve to.



Who wants to be a Cylon?
:D

LeeG
05-06-2013, 05:55 PM
Ok, Matrix Machine!

LeeG
05-06-2013, 05:56 PM
No Lee the mechanisms don't really allow for that

The oceans go aerobically stratified and instead of producing 3/4 or so of our oxygen they produce about the same amount of ammonia sulfur and methane, which kills off the trees and land forms of photosynthesizing life which produce the other 1/4 or so of oxygen

its seen again and again in the paleo climate record

The atmosphere goes devoid of oxygen in a relatively short time. In this case a very very short time. No life, or more accurately no aerobic life will survive

The High Permian is pretty well studied extinction event, it took about 40k years to screw up the atmosphere in that one, but the preliminary change in that atmosphere was 2500 times slower and there's a direct relationship between the rates of change. 40k divided by 25k = 16 thousand years. which seems like we've got a long time to go. But extrapolate out the exponential increase in that rate of change since the beginning of the industrial age and you come up with something in the vicinity of 20 to 40 years.

thing to remember is we only need maybe one or two more degrees and the system goes haywire

Oh poop, I like aerobic life

Boston
05-06-2013, 06:01 PM
Laugh it up, its about all you can do. The simple facts of the matter are irrefutable, we know that alterations in the atmospheric chemistry result in mass extinctions and we know that the rate of change determines just how bad that extinction event will be. We also know we've changed and continue to change the atmospheric chemistry at a rate wildly higher than any seen before in the paleo climate record.

The only conclusion is to extrapolate out that change to its logical end, which puts us facing an extinction event within our lifetimes, or at least within mine, not sure about the rest of you.

L.W. Baxter
05-06-2013, 06:44 PM
...The simple facts of the matter are irrefutable, we know that alterations in the atmospheric chemistry result in mass extinctions and we know that the rate of change determines just how bad that extinction event will be. We also know we've changed and continue to change the atmospheric chemistry at a rate wildly higher than any seen before in the paleo climate record.

The only conclusion is to extrapolate out that change to its logical end, which puts us facing an extinction event within our lifetimes, or at least within mine, not sure about the rest of you.

Weeeeelllll.

You are awfully certain of the future. Extrapolations tend to be wildly inaccurate, speaking, as you like, of historical precedents.

I see likelihoods and probabilities myself, more than absolutes. Extinction of the human species in the short term, while possible, seems unlikely. The link in the o.p. gives a few ideas about how the supposed inevitable may be, ahem, not so inevitable.

To whatever extent your summation of current versus historical circumstances is accurate (not terribly so, in my estimation), one thing you scrupulously avoid is the fact that at no previous epoch has earth been populated by a technology-based life-form.

Previous global extinction events will be different than this (potential) one. Past performance is no guarantee of future obliteration.

I don't count humans out of the game, just yet; we are only just learning the rules.

Chip-skiff
05-06-2013, 06:50 PM
Short answer: no.

All that will be left: Donald Trump, Adam Sandler, cockroaches, the Kardashians, and Snooki.

Boston
05-06-2013, 07:00 PM
Weeeeelllll.

You are awfully certain of the future. Extrapolations tend to be wildly inaccurate, speaking, as you like, of historical precedents.

I see likelihoods and probabilities myself, more than absolutes. Extinction of the human species in the short term, while possible, seems unlikely. The link in the o.p. gives a few ideas about how the supposed inevitable may be, ahem, not so inevitable.

To whatever extent your summation of current versus historical circumstances is accurate (not terribly so, in my estimation), one thing you scrupulously avoid is the fact that at no previous epoch has earth been populated by a technology-based life-form.

Previous global extinction events will be different than this (potential) one. Past performance is no guarantee of future obliteration.

I don't count humans out of the game, just yet; we are only just learning the rules.


Your welcome to detail why you believe your, I guess it could only be described as an assumption, is correct, as apposed to my somewhat detailed "reason" we are unlikely to survive through to the end of the century.

The facts are the facts. Past climate history has resulted in X, consistently, so if we see the same events taking place today, albeit at an accelerated pace, then there is absolutely zero reason to expect a dissimilar outcome, or worse.

Its like if you threw a baseball at a window at a variety of speeds a hundred times breaking the window each time, what could possibly make you think that throwing it even faster and harder wouldn't also break the window. The conclusion is virtually a forgone conclusion. Its just a mater of time and degrees.

okawbow
05-06-2013, 07:08 PM
In that case; all the other topics on the bilge are irrelevant. Go sailing.

shamus
05-06-2013, 07:13 PM
I think you should alert the IPCC to these 'facts'.
It would make their 5th report a lot shorter and easier to understand.

Boston
05-06-2013, 07:15 PM
actually I speak to various contributing members of the IPCC regularly ;-)

L.W. Baxter
05-06-2013, 07:16 PM
I think you should alert the IPCC to these 'facts'.
It would make their 5th report a lot shorter and easier to understand.

*snort*

L.W. Baxter
05-06-2013, 07:16 PM
actually I speak to various contributing members of the IPCC regularly ;-)

*double snort*

Gerarddm
05-06-2013, 08:13 PM
Much as they thought ahead with Project Orion, I hope somewhere in the bowels of the Rand Corporation and other think tanks they are thinking of ways to terra form Mars, because we're going to need to.

Phil Y
05-06-2013, 08:37 PM
Yeah, I'm going to quit work, sell the house and go sailing.

Kaa
05-06-2013, 08:48 PM
actually I speak to various contributing members of the IPCC regularly ;-)

...and did Trenberth ever admit that he was completely wrong about the hurricanes..? :-D

Kaa

purri
05-06-2013, 10:54 PM
But do they have the decoder ring?
actually I speak to various contributing members of the IPCC regularly ;-)

Durnik
05-06-2013, 11:11 PM
Much as they thought ahead with Project Orion, I hope somewhere in the bowels of the Rand Corporation and other think tanks they are thinking of ways to terra form Mars, because we're going to need to.

Mankind has screwed this planet up - it doesn't deserve to live.. nor to destroy another/more planet/s. To quote an old saying - "He has made his bed, let him lay in it".

peace
bobby

Kaa
05-06-2013, 11:14 PM
Mankind has screwed this planet up - it doesn't deserve to live.. nor to destroy another/more planet/s.

So, who exactly empowered you to judge mankind and decide upon its fate..?

Kaa

Gerarddm
05-07-2013, 01:03 AM
Jeesh, Durnik, you sound like Agent Smith from The Matrix calling us a virus.

epoxyboy
05-07-2013, 03:25 AM
Your link didn't work for beans but I'd have to agree the thread tittle is a valid question


see
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://phys.org/news196489543.html&sa=U&ei=xh6IUcnMNpKgqwHz0IDgDw&ved=0CCgQFjAE&sig2=nUb9igAm1fDF3XqXgleaSw&usg=AFQjCNFVRFMixp-Oe6ejLQiD878BuxGesw

The simple reality is that 4~6C rise in temp, which we are very very very likely to see sometime between 2035 and 2050 represents the end of life as we know it. Or more accurately life as we know it for millions of years.

the Cambrian extinction resulted in a dead period of about 50 million years
the KT boundary extinction resulted in a dead period of about 30 million years

we're altering the atmospheric chemistry about 1250 times faster than in the Cambrian extinction and about 2500 times faster than in the KT boundary extinction

which means our chances of the planet "not" going into a prolonged period of dormancy for oh say 30 to 50 million years is slim to none. In the end, we're extinct before the end of this century

So whose scientists are right? From the IPCC site:
For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}

So by 2050, three and a bit decades away, the projected temperature might be 1C higher than it is now. According to them. Personally, i am planning to still be around then, and if i am lucky enough to have grandkids, i expect they'll be just fine.


Pete

elf
05-07-2013, 03:46 AM
But do they have the decoder ring?
Which one?

hokiefan
05-07-2013, 04:09 AM
actually I speak to various contributing members of the IPCC regularly ;-)

Had you ever truly studied science, you would have been taught many times that extrapolation is wildly innacurate. Not to be trusted...

varadero
05-07-2013, 05:14 AM
...and did Trenberth ever admit that he was completely wrong about the hurricanes..? :-D

Kaa

He will get round to that after he finds his missing heat.

Durnik
05-07-2013, 10:24 AM
So, who exactly empowered you to judge mankind and decide upon its fate..?

Spoken like a true conservative - confusing an opinion with a decree..




Jeesh, Durnik, you sound like Agent Smith from The Matrix calling us a virus

Here's the thing - The scenario of shipping a terra-forming group off to Mars (or wherever) doesn't save the many sentient beings.. They, We, all die. All that is 'saved' is the seed to do again what has already been shown is done when you combine a reasoning mind with animal survival instincts.. IE, destruction & catastrophe. We, mankind, had our/it's chance. We took a beautiful paradise - & I mean this in the literal sense of the earth was beautiful, not the biblical b.s. sense of some imaginary paradise - & we are in the final stages of destroying its ability to support the kind of life which includes ourselves. Do you really feel 'we' (you & I obviously will not be included in any 'escape' team) deserve to destroy another planet already a paradise to itself? Sending 100 or even 1,000 people off to 'save mankind' still leaves 6,000,000,000 to die. Where is that 'good'? Also, I hold closely to the view that all existence is valid in itself. Whatever exists on Mars (or wherever) is what is _supposed_ to exist there. Man evolved here, to live, or die, here. He chose death. This awareness does not make me happy. But, as I accept my individual death, I also accept the death of mankind. Nothing lasts forever. Man's greed & hubris has 'screwed the pooch'..

& to all the christians out there who feel "we just didn't have enough god in our lives", sorry. You are wrong. It was the god followers who did (& are doing) most of the destruction. The attitude of 'god gave me this to do whatever I want with it' is the attitude which allows man to destroy, pollute and yes, kill & steal. Those who can make us believe absurdities can make us commit atrocities. The many cultures which lived with the earth are reduced to next to none - killed, literally, by those who follow manifest destiny in all its horrific forms.

Now, if those who call themselves 'Christian', literally 'of Christ', only were..




He will get round to that after he finds his missing heat.

There is no 'missing heat'. There is a problem with people not knowing there is a difference between heat energy & temperature.

peace
bobby

Boston
05-07-2013, 11:45 AM
Had you ever truly studied science, you would have been taught many times that extrapolation is wildly innacurate. Not to be trusted...

Any good theory should be able to predict. Accurately. The theory of rapid global climate shift has done exactly that, starting with Fourier who first discovered that it was the earths atmosphere that kept the planet warm, something like the early 1800s. To Tyndall ( pretty sure I spelled that wrong ) who studied how atmospheric gasses might effect temp, he suggested that mans activities might disturb the delicate balance and change climate and that was about 150 years ago. Another scientist ( Arrhenius, and yes I had to look that one up ) came along and in the late 1800 estimated/predicted/extrapolated from incomplete data that a doubling of CO2 would result in a 5~6C rise in temp. Funny that little prediction cause its exactly correct today. After something like 120 years that original estimate is pretty much right on the money. Keeling I think it was, about 60 or so years later, who finally proved that the burning of fossil fuels was actually raising the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So here's where it gets interesting, in the 70s a couple scientists ( Manabe and Wetherall ) estimated ( incorrectly I might add ) That a doubling of CO2 would only raise temps by about 2C. We can go back to 1800 temp and move forward through the industrial revolution till today and see the temps already almost at + 2C and we've "only" added about 1/3 to the atmospheric CO2 ( from about 280 ppm in 1800 to about 380 ppm 2010 ) By the 80s estimates of CO2s doubling effect on temp had crept back up between +2~4C along with the realization that this average increase wouldn't be evenly distributed around the globe.

Right about 1990 people started realizing just how complex and important an issue this really was IE just how frightening the results of climate shift were, and the UN formed the IPCC to investigate different emissions scenarios and what there climate impacts might be.

Predictions were made in the first report, and proved to be accurate by the second.
Predictions were made in the second report, and proved to be accurate by the third

By the third report ( out about 2000 ) the range of temps estimated/predicted/extrapolated from the various increases in CO2 considered were in the range of +1.5C ( if we reduce atmospheric CO2 back down to pre 1980 levels, I think it might have been pre 1990 levels, I'd have to go look it up ) to +6C by 2100 ( worst case scenario and double CO2 ) . And we're right back to where Arrhenius said we'd be way way back in the late 1800s. But you might notice, in 2100. Not my predicted 2035~2050 range. So whats the rub, you might ask.

Fourth assessment report

max temp estimate by the end of this century was raised to +6.4C due to the fact that all estimates of CO2 increase were low when compared to field measurements. We are in fact beyond worst case scenario, and CO2 could now be estimated to exceed doubling before 2100

Is my opinion of how the data can and is being extrapolated by the IPCC unique, or is it a widely held belief that the IPCC is reporting conservatively


On 1 February 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.[119] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#cite_not e-BBC_1-119) The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection, and the actual sea level rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection.

Another example of scientific research which suggests that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, have actually understated them is a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m [50–140 cm] above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001". This may have been due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate.[120] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#cite_not e-BBC_2-120)[121] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#cite_not e-Telegraph-121)
In reporting criticism by some scientists that IPCC's then-impending January 2007 report understates certain risks, particularly sea level rises, an AP story quoted Stefan Rahmstorf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Rahmstorf), professor of physics and oceanography at Potsdam University as saying "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk".[122] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#cite_not e-122)



So here's the reason why I think the numbers work out to a +4~6C by 2035 to 2050

See
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/103940/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg

so thats a graph of the four best temp studies going back to about 1800, the average temp ( gray area ) in 1800~1820 puts temp at about -0.75C from the base average, and the average temp in 2005 is +0.9C. Which puts our increase in temp at about +1.65C between 1800 and 20005.

Issue is the increase isn't linear.

Most of the warming occurred in the last 30 or so years, and there's no end in sight, no reason to believe it won't continue warming at what looks like the fastest rate possible. Except for one slight detail. Methane, CH4.

Methane is stored in huge quantities around the continental shelves in a substance called hydrate. Hydrates are inherently unstable, when disturbed it sublimates ( sorta ) erupting in huge quantities as a gas.

This short might help understand what methane hydrate is a little better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahmjHLyF9GM

methane is held in solution as a hydrate by specific pressures and temps, climate shift, changes those pressures and temps. Releasing the methane to the atmosphere. Methane is about 26x more powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2

This graph shows whats been happening to the levels of atmospheric methane

http://www.eoearth.org/files/145501_145600/145558/methane_eoe_atmosphere.jpg

from
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.eoearth.org/files/145501_145600/145558/methane_eoe_atmosphere.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greenhouse_gas&usg=__b8tX0yDWoj5Wigk7ra0yLeDCWnc=&h=601&w=838&sz=48&hl=en&start=4&sig2=U7dT4dgWSaglhr_NjCcPNA&zoom=1&tbnid=2ck8HZLpb7QZiM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=144&ei=TjSJUdauMsPZqQGRgoGYBQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmethane%2Bgraph%26um%3D1%26sa%3DN%26h l%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDIQrQMwAw

The issue isn't really if we can slow down our CO2 emissions, obviously we can't and obviously the long held prediction that a doubling of CO2 will result in a 4~6C increase in temps is well within the range of possibilities. The issue is that previously few had included the effects of the huge amounts of CH4 now being released to the atmosphere and accelerating climate shift well beyond the already conservative estimates of the IPCC

See
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane&sa=U&ei=LzWJUbi1CsSZrAHpuYGwCg&ved=0CB0QFjAB&sig2=ST0Jlg_-iuou4OEO34HTQA&usg=AFQjCNGHHziL0UUbmzzC26zeUE4frvpLiA


Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/arctic) permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change).

Boston
05-07-2013, 12:17 PM
Its no great leap to find enough forcing within the system to come up with 2035~2050 as a reasonable estimate for a +4~6 increase in temps. Most likely in the higher range of that estimate than lower.

So what happens when you increase temps by that amount ?

Aerobic stratification of the oceans for one. IE no more oxygen. Extinction

See
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D2fRPiNcikOU&sa=U&ei=FzeJUcOMKsPsyQH8qYDwAw&ved=0CBkQtwIwAA&sig2=tHLUgSqUcdByroYaPwcrtw&usg=AFQjCNE9sd9IojF1aWR-XqDIqg-0u5qLyA

Kaa
05-07-2013, 12:26 PM
http://mthudson.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/end-is-near.jpg


:-D

Kaa

Boston
05-07-2013, 01:36 PM
It was inevitable some denier would come along and with absolutely not a shred of factual data to support there view, express the classic head in the sand syndrome that led us to where we are now. Ignore the centuries of science and accurate predictions behind the theory and instead, pretend its nothing more than some kinda religious diatribe with no basis in reality.

Brilliant rebuttal Kaa, exactly what I expected.

No wonder we've exceeded worst case scenario with each new assessment report, and small wonder we can expect pretty much no meaningful change until its well past to late.

The concept of tipping points is obviously lost on some of our less well educated.

Kaa
05-07-2013, 01:52 PM
Brilliant rebuttal Kaa, exactly what I expected.

Well, Boston, it was custom-tailored to your level of argument :-P


The concept of tipping points is obviously lost on some of our less well educated.

Ugh! Whatsa dat "tipping point"? Kaa SMASH!!

Kaa

Boston
05-07-2013, 02:23 PM
Troll

has no concept of the data presented
doesn't take the time to analyze the data presented
has no background in the subject being discussed
makes no rational contribution to the discussion
doesn't understand the terminology

Instead
wallows in ignorance while pretending science doesn't exist and everything's just hunky dory ;-)

whats a tipping point ? please, I just about fell out of my chair,

Not that the troll will bother following the link and learning anything, but just in case our readers are curious.

See
for a brief description
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://climate.dot.gov/about/overview/climate_tipping_points.html&sa=U&ei=9FOJUcO_Jcqa0QGszoGABA&ved=0CB8QFjAD&sig2=LrBzs-3SinRppPGIXBhCpQ&usg=AFQjCNHNWCzjUNoDvDb4tMyUt2MatA1A3g

and this link which gives a pretty good overview of the consensus within the science of climate shift.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/earth-tipping-point-study_n_1577835.html&sa=U&ei=9FOJUcO_Jcqa0QGszoGABA&ved=0CCwQFjAH&sig2=9WtPJZhnnJZS4qk5N2tUug&usg=AFQjCNH891mM9y3XOsV9cTD5IOTD5ghJmw

While I'm certain Kaa your next post will be just as pedestrian as your last. You might want to at least educate yourself a little as to the subject before you go asking any more silly questions to which answers are so readily available.

Kaa
05-07-2013, 02:32 PM
Troll

has no concept of the data presented
doesn't take the time to analyze the data presented
has no background in the subject being discussed
makes no rational contribution to the discussion
doesn't understand the terminology

Wow :-) So that's what you saw in the mirror? :-D


You might want to at least educate yourself a little

<cue in Pink Floyd> We don't need no education... :-D

Kaa

Boston
05-07-2013, 02:48 PM
Troll

you forgot


Not that the troll will bother following the link and learning anything

took you about five minutes to respond

Yet the links I've presented thus far would require at least a few hours to review.

Obviously I hit the nail on the head

oh well, feel free to continue embarrassing yourself, its a great example of denial for the readers. Someone who isn't even remotely interested in learning the issues presented or incorporating them into the discussion. Sad really cause its people like you that have ignored these warnings for so long that we all end up paying the price.

Kaa
05-07-2013, 03:07 PM
took you about five minutes to respond

Yet the links I've presented thus far would require at least a few hours to review.

LOL. That assumes taking you seriously :D

I tried to talk to you about actual papers a couple of times. Both times you demonstrated a deep level of fail. At this point I don't believe you are capable of rationally discussing climate research. You're just the-end-of-the-world-is-near trolling.

Kaa

Boston
05-07-2013, 03:13 PM
Ahahahahaahaha

ok sorry but it took me a while to stop laughing

so now, the guy who presents supporting data after supporting data and formulates an argument beginning with the dawn of climate studies, the guy in at least somewhat regular communication with the authors and contributors to the various assessment reports

isn't capable of discussing climate science.

you really are quite entertaining even if obviously a troll with absolutely no intelligent or detailed rebuttal to contribute.

Oh and again you could not have possibly taken the time to even just review the data presented in support of the theory. So again, your obviously just shooting from the hip, trying to entertain yourself by trolling the net.

Me, I've got work to do.

Cheers
B

Boston
05-07-2013, 05:21 PM
OK so lets try and get this back on track

Methane seeps discovered erupting from land areas previously covered in ice.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm%3Fid%3Dmore-than-150000-methane-seeps-appear-as-arctic-ice-retreats&sa=U&ei=lnqJUaHVMo2c8gSqvIG4CQ&ved=0CCUQFjAC&sig2=yRjXSbSO-qK221rkpXx5Zg&usg=AFQjCNFawzBDbAeErTNppkl-k4N_XWAvMg


Scientists have long known of the existence of methane seeps in the Arctic, but the new study is one of the first to map them over large areas.
Walter Anthony and her colleagues used airplanes to fly over 6,700 lakes in Alaska during the winters of 2008, 2009 and 2010.
The survey revealed 77 previously unknown seep sites, which the scientists narrowed down to 50 lakes they visited on foot.
They documented the seeps they found, using carbon-dating to determine the age of methane released at the sites. The scientists performed the same analysis at 25 lakes in western Greenland.
Seep sites in Alaska tended to occur where permafrost is thawing or at the edges of receding glaciers. In Greenland, the scientists found seeps in places where glaciers have retreated over the past 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age.
The researchers calculate that methane seeps in Alaska alone are releasing 250,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere each year, 50 to 70 percent more than previously estimated.


Combine that with the data showing methane to be on a wild ride sky high on the charts and you ( OK the rational thinkers in the crowd ) end up beginning to see my point about having the IPCC having underestimated the consequences of the increasing temps.

The IPCC estimated

By the fourth assessment report there is no scenario, let alone a worst case scenario that doesn't just about double CO2 by 2100, several of them triple it, and fully half of them double it by 2050. Doubling Co2 results in temps of 4~6C higher than the pre industrial norm. Not including the CH4 component of this situation.

http://www.ipcc-data.org/figures/ipcc_ddc_co2_scenarios.jpg



For each of the illustrative and marker emissions scenarios, CO2 concentration projections calculated by two different carbon cycle models were reported in IPCC (2001) (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/) and used as the bases for climate model projections there and in the Fourth Assessment Report. Thes are also shown in Figure 1. The carbon cycle models, ISAM and BERN, are described in Box 3.7 of IPCC (2001). The projected concentrations are given in Annex II of the IPCC Third Assessment WG I report (the `reference' projections were used). The data can be obtained as plain text files here: ISAM (http://www.ipcc-data.org/ancilliary/tar-isam.txt), BERN (http://www.ipcc-data.org/ancilliary/tar-bern.txt).

And that again does not include the effects of the wildly increasing methane being released into the system.

Boston
05-09-2013, 03:06 PM
Its unfortunate the subject is so brutally conclusive, even people who are very "up" on the present situation really do hesitate to get involved in discussing just whats most likely to happen once the CH4 sinks release. In the KT boundary extinction it took the siberian traps about 1 million years to raise global average temps about +4C which tripped the methane release that then took about 40k years to raise temps about another 6 or so degrees which ended up causing one of the biggest ( sometimes mistaken as "the" biggest extinctions ) extinction events known.

The truly worrying part is that what took roughly 1 million years back then will only take us about 250 years today. We've already raised temp by just about +1.7C in 210 years, which works out to being roughly 2400 times faster than in the KT event which killed off everything down to about 2 lbs, for about 30 million years. And even thats accelerating.

As a guy named Kevin Trenburth told me not long ago, when I mentioned my concerns about the methane sinks destabilizing, he said " we're all worried about that, its the one wild card we just can't predict, at what point the methane sinks destabilize is anybodies guess, so yah, we're keeping a very watchfull eye on it" is his response as best I can remember it.

Thing is if you follow methane concentrations in the atmosphere

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/theme-reports/atmosphere/images/atfg052.gif

there's obviously a problem

a higher resolution shows some interesting stutters in the rise though. Which could be certain sections of sinks letting go.

From
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/20090306-methane-concentrations.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/why-yes-methane-bubbling-up-from-a-frozen-lake-can-be-lit-on-fire.html&usg=__k51wap9P17Zd8KdUQj_c6c2_-70=&h=346&w=468&sz=46&hl=en&start=15&sig2=Uc-rCrEArMOmER1cD-32xg&zoom=1&tbnid=HGnEKIDO2nyD8M:&tbnh=95&tbnw=128&ei=l_6LUaXEK5W84APUjoHoDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmethane%2Bconcentration%2Bin%2Batmosp here%26um%3D1%26sa%3DN%26hl%3Den%
26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CEgQrQMwDg

see
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/20090306-methane-concentrations.jpg


That 6 year flat spot is why its unpredictable, the characteristics unique to various sinks mean they're all likely set to a different trigger point. Our best hope is that there's a large variation between trigger points. Its a slim hope but its something. Lesser resolutions don't, unfortunately, show much statistical relevance to the smaller blips tho, so its not much to go on. CH4 is rising and fast, which will cause temps to increase a lot faster than the IPCC predicted.

See
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/gases/images/ave_methaneconc.gif

Kevin T
05-09-2013, 03:58 PM
So if I understand it correctly Boston, you're going out in a "blaze of glory."

Either the planet will cook us, or you'll go down with both guns blast'in in an apocalyptic finale defending a half eaten box of wheat thins, some cheese whiz, some cold pizza and a few warm beers. I like it.:rolleyes:

P.S. I'm not a climate science denier, just bored waiting on the plumber.

Boston
05-09-2013, 05:13 PM
No worries, and no, I'm more of the "got me a front row seat" kinda camper. for a moment there I thought you were the Kevin T I'd met in Boulder so long ago and who I traded a few E mails a short while back. Guys a giant in the field of climate studies and well worth reading up on. He's got some really interesting stuff out there about how the oceans are reacting to climate change. Might do yourself a favor and learn how to sweat pipes together as well, saves a fortune on plumbing costs ;-)

And no, it won't be a blaze of glorry and there won't be any wheat thins left by then, wheat crops would have failed years before, it will be more like Soilent Green is all thats left. That movie Day after tomorrow had it all coming down in just one or two days. But thats really not how its most likely to happen. Likely the system can only change so fast, even given that CO2 is on a rocket ride off the charts as is CH4, the difference is we might ( won't, but might ) be able to at least to some degree control CO2 emissions if we actually put our minds to it, but that CH4 is the wild card, different sinks release as certain unknown destabilizing characteristics within the climate shift occur. And there's no precedent within the paleo climate record to look at for a reference. Nothings ever changed the atmospheric chemistry this fast before. So just how fast can the planet "cook us" isn't that easy to predict. The IPCC does predict a doubling of Co2 by 2100 which must result in a temp increase of +4~6C and there is precedent within the paleo climate history as to what happens when you raise global average temps by +4C over a 1 million year period of time. The methane goes, which really screws up the place. Point is that even if all the methane sinks dumped into the system right now, it would still take some time for the system to catch up and reflect the heat the new chemistry would demand. There's only so much solar radiation available to add in heat. Yet still the IPCC predictions are historically conservative and halving there estimate of when we hit +~5C seems reasonable given the present level of CH4 emissions

Course then there's "what happens if and when the grand oceanic current stops and the oceans go aerobically stratified. Throws another whole slew of variables into the mix

I don't see a blaze of glory in my future ;-) I'm a little to conservative in my use of weapons, but we do live in very interesting times. The US gubment has gone blatantly fascist, Mussolini's model almost to a tee except without the problem of the single strong arm dictator. There's absolutely zero chance of armed or peaceful resistance, the corporate interests are so well entrenched its unbelievable. And yes, in my lifetime at least I believe we'll see the stark realities of climate shift sink in rather deeply. I'll be pretty old by then but I feel badly for all the kids who are going to have to deal with it as best they can. Just how bad it is likely to be is hard to say, but total collapse of the ecosystem right down to its ability to produce oxygen is a very real possibility, Its happened before, just not as fast as what we're seeing today.

Enjoy that plumbing, its not so bad if its copper, but it sounds like you hired out, so I'd guess sewer line

Cheers
B

Kaa
05-09-2013, 08:59 PM
Kevin T I'd met in Boulder so long ago and who I traded a few E mails a short while back. Guys a giant in the field of climate studies and well worth reading up on.

That's Kevin Trenberth who didn't do his credibility any favors when he loudly proclaimed that global warming is making the hurricanes much worse right now :-) By the way, Boston, you didn't answer my question -- did your pal ever admit he was completely wrong about that?

He's also known for the candid admission in 2009 (in an email that saw light through Climategate) that "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Oh, and I don't think his efforts to find the "missing heat" in the oceans have been all that successful...

Kaa

Boston
05-10-2013, 03:15 AM
That's Kevin Trenberth who didn't do his credibility any favors when he loudly proclaimed that global warming is making the hurricanes much worse right now :-) By the way, Boston, you didn't answer my question -- did your pal ever admit he was completely wrong about that?

He's also known for the candid admission in 2009 (in an email that saw light through Climategate) that "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Oh, and I don't think his efforts to find the "missing heat" in the oceans have been all that successful...

Kaa

Classic climate denier diatribe. Firstly the premise of the first sentence is way way wrong. Let look at it

That's Kevin Trenberth who didn't do his credibility any favors when he loudly proclaimed that global warming is making the hurricanes much worse right now

For the record the peer review process has clearly established that hurricane periodicity and intensity has increased over the last thirty years.

See
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html


The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

ya know, its late, I'm just in from a very nice party with some friends and there's not a single word of your diatribe thats even remotely accurate

so I guess I"ll just sign off for now, after at least clarifying the hurricane strength issue, but none of the other issues you brought up, were even remotely truthful or accurate either.

particularly the part about the Climate gate issue. Maybe you'd like to include the previous, present and following paragraph of Kevins statements in order to maybe show our readers just how far out of context you've taken his statements. Or is it that by including that context, you'd thus prove yourself wrong.

John Smith
05-10-2013, 05:57 AM
Having been around a while, I can speak of that which I have personally experienced. As a young man and as a boy, I went ice skating every winter, all winter, on my local ponds. It's been decades since those ponds froze solidly enough for ice skating.

NJ seldom got much in the way of hurricanes; usually petered out a great deal by the time they came here. Now we've two years in a row with major storms.

Hoboken has a problem every time it rains heavily.

Something is definitely changing.

varadero
05-10-2013, 07:54 AM
Having been around a while, I can speak of that which I have personally experienced. As a young man and as a boy, I went ice skating every winter, all winter, on my local ponds. It's been decades since those ponds froze solidly enough for ice skating.

NJ seldom got much in the way of hurricanes; usually petered out a great deal by the time they came here. Now we've two years in a row with major storms.

Hoboken has a problem every time it rains heavily.

Something is definitely changing.

Dude, why not keep repeating yourself, maybe someone will listen about your Weather. Geeeesh.

varadero
05-10-2013, 07:54 AM
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg (http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg)

Boston
05-10-2013, 10:08 AM
actually Johns got a good point. In my old home town we also have a pond, not sure it ever freezes over anymore either. re where I live now, back in the 70s, it used to rain every afternoon at about 3 like clockwork. Did that for years, but not anymore, we sometimes go the whole summer with no rain now. Things are definitely changing

V lets look at more than just one graph, How about NOAA Fluid dynamics lab. Its got a great overview of the situation and a number of ways to look at the data being presented.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

I'm sure you'll notice the first thing they state is that its premature to conclude that human activities have already had an detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity, but if you notice its very carefully worded so that it doesn't suggest there isn't an impact or that in the very near future we won't see that impact. What its clearly saying is that whatever impacts may exist now, are going to be difficult to quantify, but that impacts in the future are highly likely to become more and more obvious as we proceed through this century.

That said there's other regional weather data that does clearly show an upward trend.



Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity (e.g. Emanuel 2007 (ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Factors.pdf).) show a strong correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) (Figure 1). PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but the link between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to and Atlantic SST in Figure 1 suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If the correlation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity shown in Figure 1 is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potential--roughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 2 a).

There's a lot more in there than just that and its just to much to cut and paste here, but you'll find the summary statement to be quite accurate when it says its premature to conclude that human activities have already had an detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. This issue is likely the most difficult of all climate related studies because its dealing with weather and not climate. But if you actually read "all" the data on that page, its pretty difficult to say, we're not sitting right on the edge of being able to make that conclusion in oh say, the next ten or twenty years.

If you look into average maximum wave heights, particularly in the Pacific North West, your going to notice a huge increase, something in the order of 35%. That energy has to come from somewhere ?

In the end, the data is still nearly all pointing in the same direction, up up up.

Lew Barrett
05-10-2013, 10:24 AM
TED Talks (http://www.ted.com/search?cat=ss_all&q=extinction) on the subject.

I don't think science has been mute on the topic.