Mass Plankton Die-Off

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by osirissail

Here is a nice collection of charts/graphs of what has been happening to world temperatures over the last 65 million years. And basically the overall trend is towards cooling, not warming.
The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings « JoNova

Below is one of the charts for Greenland Ice Cores over the last 10K years. What is important to is observe the huge "vibrations" or swings in temperatures between hot and cold during periods of hundreds to thousands of years. These swings are much larger than the present doom and gloom predicted "up to 2C." Of even more interest is the little red section of the graph at the bottom right edge of the graph where "present" is located. We are coming out of the "little ice age" and warming up back towards the earth's historically warmer periods. The AGW/ACC proponents are looking at that miniscule "up tick" and predicting the end of the world or at least their funding.

That is one more reason I keep thinking, DUH!!!

[stark]

Originally Posted by foggysail

I agree with your statement--almost!!! Nothing will be done because there is nothing substantive that can be done. Further, I am not willing to give one nickel to any cap and trade scheme that might come about because of environmental activism. And yes, many large companies including GE are on record to be in favor of cap and trade. Could there be a profit motive???

Foggy

I agree, cap and trade policies are misguided. And for the most part, IMHO, this new "green economy" is just another way to take advantage of consumers to pad rich peoples pockets. Tao pointed out a real issue (post 373) about the disparity between rich and poor!

BUT!!

What if there really is a climate crisis? And this crisis leads to an agricultural crisis? Then the agricultural crisis forces farms (which are heavily indebted) to default on their loans. Massive default rates will follow with a run on the banks. And we all know that when the banks fail, AIG and Goldman execs get massive bonuses while the rest of us lose our houses and retirement!!

My propaganda: Support climate research, if not so you know how you can help, but at least so we know what we might be facing.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by stark

My propaganda: Support climate research, if not so you know how you can help, but at least so we know what we might be facing.

My propoganda: Support climate research if you want to. And know that it might get warmer or it might get cooler, just like it always has.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by JiffyLube

If there really is a mass plankton die-off isn't possible that we are witnessing natural evolution? Isn't it possible that the rise and fall of mankind is just part of the natural order?

Maybe the rise and fall of mankind is just part of the natural order.

Excerpted from Animal Extinction - the greatest threat to mankind
By the end of the century half of all species will be extinct. Does that matter?
By Julia Whitty

Here ➥ http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...nd-397939.html

“... A poll by the American Museum of Natural History finds that seven in 10 biologists believe that mass extinction poses a colossal threat to human existence, a more serious environmental problem than even its contributor, global warming; and that the dangers of mass extinction are woefully underestimated by almost everyone outside science. In the 200 years since French naturalist Georges Cuvier first floated the concept of extinction, after examining fossil bones and concluding "the existence of a world previous to ours, destroyed by some sort of catastrophe", we have only slowly recognised and attempted to correct our own catastrophic behaviour...”

As we know we will certainly die, have we designed all other systems to follow us in the developed civilized world? Have we, in effect, designed "end of life" into all our activities?

Man has evolved into an invasive species that, unlike all others that survive on available and sustainable resources, cohabitating in balance with others, we consume out of balance with the laws of nature. We change the natural environment to suit, not just our needs; but our wants. We consume. We consume out of balance to the point of extinction, not only of all other ecosystems on which we also depend on for our own survival, but soon to the tipping point, where it may be written "The Rise and Fall of Man".

Even though we can look back and see the outcome for past civilizations, whose over consumption of resources caused their ultimate extinction, we seem to be choosing the same outcome.

Any future that has a sustainable future, not a finite one, needs to start with a complete redesign.

We are good at looking back, not forward. We react to issues, not to seeing them coming. It’s not our fault, just our training. Live for today, tomorrow never comes. Don’t worry about it, it may never happen.

But we do have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight on this. We can historically see where civilizations went wrong. We can now see a future, which unless we actually want one that is finite, we must change. It is still our choice!

Future generations will not have the resources on which we have built the industrial and economic model of the developed and developing nations. They will need to survive without them and adapt their lives to survive. They will need to develop infinite and sustainable systems. They will have no other choice. If they do not adapt they will perish.

I am willing to bet there are few in the CF who do not sense their children or grandchildren standing invisibly at their shoulders. How do you wish them to judge us?

Some experts believe combatting global warming would actually increase prosperity, by bringing in new technologies. Economists stress there is little time for delay. If action is put off for a decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has to wait 20 years, it will cost between three and seven times as much.

[stark]

Originally Posted by Therapy

My propoganda: Support climate research if you want to. And know that it might get warmer or it might get cooler, just like it always has.

But don't you want to know? Even if its only a slight chance that it leads to something real devastating? I'm not arguing whether its man-made or natural, but isn't it worth knowing whats going to happen?

I suppose in those terms it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. To which I'll argue that none of us here are qualified to determine and then you'll argue that the only people that are qualified are biased for their personal gain.

Impasse!

[dacust]

Originally Posted by osirissail

Here is a nice collection of charts/graphs of what has been happening to world temperatures over the last 65 million years. And basically the overall trend is towards cooling, not warming.
The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings « JoNova

Below is one of the charts for Greenland Ice Cores over the last 10K years. What is important to is observe the huge "vibrations" or swings in temperatures between hot and cold during periods of hundreds to thousands of years. These swings are much larger than the present doom and gloom predicted "up to 2C." Of even more interest is the little red section of the graph at the bottom right edge of the graph where "present" is located. We are coming out of the "little ice age" and warming up back towards the earth's historically warmer periods. The AGW/ACC proponents are looking at that miniscule "up tick" and predicting the end of the world or at least their funding.

Your source, David Lappi, is president of LAPP Resources, Inc.

From their own website:
"LAPP Resources, Inc. is an Alaska-owned independent energy exploration and production company based in Anchorage, Alaska, USA. We are active in natural gas exploration and development, and are also evaluating several wind energy sites in Alaska. Favorable wind sites will be instrumented, monitored, and developed as new wind farms."

Anyone can cook data and produce graphs. Either side. But I trust the scientists more than I do the president of a corporation that does natural gas exploration.

I have decided to not post in these threads anymore. I have repeatedly suggested that people google the sources before posting. Since no one seems to do that, I end up doing it. And it's getting tiresome.

I'm not learning much here, because I have to wade through so much garbage before I find a nugget of truth. I have learned some things, though. And I thank you all for that. All of you.

I'm not mad, just tired of the futility.

-dan

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by stark

But don't you want to know? Even if its only a slight chance that it leads to something real devastating? I'm not arguing whether its man-made or natural, but isn't it worth knowing whats going to happen?

I suppose in those terms it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. To which I'll argue that none of us here are qualified to determine and then you'll argue that the only people that are qualified are biased for their personal gain.

Impasse!

Sure, I would like to know. But how to know?

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by dacust

I'm not mad, just tired of the futility.

-dan

You seem to think that all the pro human-causing GW people are altruistic about it all and the deniers are not.

I disagree.

[stark]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Sure, I would like to know. But how to know?

Give science a chance? People may argue that climate science is biased by secondary motives. And certainly there is some amount of bias in it. But the better we understand it, the harder it is for the 'bad science' to stand.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Maybe the rise and fall of mankind is just part of the natural order.



Man has evolved into an invasive species that, unlike all others that survive on available and sustainable resources, cohabitating in balance with others, we consume out of balance with the laws of nature. We change the natural environment to suit, not just our needs; but our wants. We consume. We consume out of balance to the point of extinction, not only of all other ecosystems on which we also depend on for our own survival, but soon to the tipping point, where it may be written "The Rise and Fall of Man".


.

I don't think that.
I think that other species are affected by lack of food (resources), disease and predators. Food being the major limiting factor in the species growth/survival. They will consume whatever is available.

We don't have too many natural predators. Viruses and each other maybe. We are using resources available to us as fast as we can reproduce to use them. Just like a herd of deer that find a corn field (or whatever). They don't know to conserve it. They will consume it till it is gone. We do the same thing. We think we are smarter than the deer but we, as a species, are not. We are consuming and reproducing to the maximum extent possible. That we destroy things along the way and are poisoning our gardens is a by product of our life.

When resources go away, for whatever reason, all species starve until a new balance is met or they are extinct.

We do kill off a lot of life with our consumption and waste and it affects us and our environment to a great extent. Is that just natural? Could be.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by stark

Give science a chance? People may argue that climate science is biased by secondary motives. And certainly there is some amount of bias in it. But the better we understand it, the harder it is for the 'bad science' to stand.

We are not going to stop studying climate. I know that. We are going to continue studying everything.

I just don't believe some of the "causes" being rammed.

[barnakiel]

With the rate of population growth in China, India and South America no wonder the plankton dies off - something has to get reincarnated, huh?

b.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by dacust

Your source, David Lappi, is president of LAPP Resources, Inc.. . .
-dan

I would suggest you look more closely at the link I posted. The charts and information was "GUEST POST by David Lappi". He did not originate the information. He merely - like me and like GordMay - posted things he found that were of interest to the discussion.
- - The actual origin of the information came from a Science issue:
Science. 2001 Apr 27;292(5517):686-93.
Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present.
Zachos J, Pagani M, Sloan L, Thomas E, Billups K.
Earth Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. jzachos@es.ucsc.edu

and was compiled into the charts by:
Robert A. Rohde, a PhD student at UC Berkeley in the Physics Department.

who is a neutral translator of climate data information into understandable charts to be used by any interested party on any side of the climate change issue.

Here is some versions of the historical temperature change of the earth going back 500 million years and 9K years. [charts below]

- - The point being you can pick a micro span of time and suggest either global cooling or global heating. When in overall history of the world temperatures have been sometimes colder and sometimes much hotter than now.

- - From my original link, but further down the page is this interesting tidbit . . . .

Not another IPCC-gate?

Fitting with this is the trend of the last few decades where most of the world warmed, but Antarctica cooled and its sea ice increased. And as it happens, just today comes word of another cringeworthy error in AR4: The report whitewashes a steady growth in Antarctic sea ice, and underestimates it by 50%. (When the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts…)

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Some experts believe combatting global warming would actually increase prosperity, by bringing in new technologies. Economists stress there is little time for delay. If action is put off for a decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has to wait 20 years, it will cost between three and seven times as much.

If the chart shown by osirissail is correct then historically the earth is "not" in an overall global warming up swing, but possibly in an adjustment phase before moving farther away from a warming cycle...which according to the chart is the more likely scenario. Man surely plays some role in species die offs, but we will never know if these species would have died off "naturally" on their own. I don't think a person that accepts the concept of evolution and natural selection, can say that global warming or cooling is not part of the process, but a process separate onto itself.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by dacust

Anyone can cook data and produce graphs. Either side. But I trust the scientists more than I do the president of a corporation that does natural gas exploration.

I guess it gets down to which camp we're in. Since scientists are employed by business to gain meaningful information for their employer (so the employer can made an informed decision), these scientists are seen by one camp as not "real" scientists that can be trusted because of their associations. In the other camp are those that trust only scientists that have never been employed or tainted by business, except for businesses that deal in environmental products or services. Which scientist camp has an agenda? Can both camps be right and wrong in their agenda?