Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Contributing to thread drift but it's become all about worldview anyway... any cat/dog owner who isn't deliberately planning to breed the animal responsibly, but doesn't get the animal spayed/neutered... is an irresponsible jackass. If you don't understand why, go talk to a veterinarian.

You probably expected this viewpoint from me. There you go.

Yep we all agree on this point

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...any cat/dog owner who isn't deliberately planning to breed the animal responsibly, but doesn't get the animal spayed/neutered... is...irresponsible...

Can't quibble with logic like that.

[newhaul]

Average ocean temp is down by a half deg f today.

[newhaul]

1000 tons of so2 per day into the atmosphere should have an effect on jacks calculations Volcanoes Today, 13 Feb 2016: Momotombo volcano and that's just one volcano that is currently erupting

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Contributing to thread drift but it's become all about worldview anyway... any cat/dog owner who isn't deliberately planning to breed the animal responsibly, but doesn't get the animal spayed/neutered... is an irresponsible jackass. If you don't understand why, go talk to a veterinarian.

You probably expected this viewpoint from me. There you go.

I'm going to use my CF departure post to agree 100% with Mr. Lake-Effect and show others that it's possible to share a common interest in sailing but still carry on civil, and entertaining discussions with those who disagree on various subjects being discussed.

Will keep my account open for communications with friends. See you later.

Ken

[newhaul]

Fair winds ken see ya out there

[Simonsays]

Fair winds Ken, stay safe down there.

[Reefmagnet]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Reefmagnet]

Interesting article for two reasons. Firstly the earth has experienced extreme and rapid climate change in recent history (who knew ) and, secondly, it appears to have been given way too much credit for the wiping out of entire species.

On the latter, I can't help but think this may also substantially apply to current CC related extinction hysteria.

Australia's megafauna likely went extinct due to humans rather than climate change, new research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B has found.
A 16-strong team, including one Queensland scientist, meticulously sifted through a broad range of data and found human predation was the likely factor behind the extinction of Australia's megafauna, including the wombat-like diprotodon, the flightless bird genyronis and the giant kangaroo procoptodon.
The finding comes in direct contrast to the existing theory that found megafauna extinction was most likely due to climate change and not the introduction of humans to the continent.

James Cook University professor Michael Bird said the team's multidisciplinary effort, which included ecologists, archeologists, geologists, paleontologists and climate scientists, ensured quality control on every piece of available data studied.
"We took a systematic approach to it. Is it a date on a bone or is it a date on sediment around the bone and we categorised things in terms of quality," he said.
"Dates that passed the tests were included in the paper and those that didn't were chucked out. We then matched the physical evidence with known climate records from the period and the history of human movement into the continent."
Professor Michael Bird was one of 16 scientists who worked on the causes behind the extinction of Australia's megafauna.

Data analysis determined when megafauna went extinct, which Professor Baird said was found to have been between 45,000 to 50,000 years ago, and whether that overlapped with a climate shift and/or human arrival on the Sahul landmass, an "unbroken" continent that is now New Guinea, the Australian mainland and Tasmania.
Professor Baird said the change in climate "really kicked into gear" from 30,000 to 20,000 years ago and was unlikely to have been the main factor behind the extinction of megafauna, given the "very short geological period" and the varied climate across the landmass.
"Megafauna had lived through several previous ice ages without any problems, there is nothing exceptional about the last cycle compared to previous cycles over the last 2 million years," Professor Baird said.

"It might have had some small impact, but the evidence points strongly to human impact as the cause of extinction for these megafauna over the period of thousands of years."


Read more: Australia's megafauna wiped out by humans, research finds

[newhaul]

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I must have had the same dream. Haven't gone back over the 2000+ posts, but I seem to remember a discussion (but perhaps it was somewhere else) about C14 concentration in the gross CO2 burden of the atmosphere being useful to characterize anthropogenic CO2.

The argument went something like:
-Because C14 has a relatively short half life, and is thus absent from "old" carboniferous material such as oil, gas, and coal formed millennia ago...
-When CO2 is produced during burning of these materials, they add nothing to overall C14 inventory but do add to the total C inventory...
-And as a result, the dilution of the C14 inventory allows evaluation of the effects of carbon fuels being burned...which are anthropogenic effects...
-And thus a determination of the percentage of CO2 attributable to anthropogenc causes can be made.

Did I dream all this as well?

Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

Anthropogenic CO2?

The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises. As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence? There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:

1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.

[further elucidation of each point omitted]

Playing Climate Change Cluedo

As a child I enjoyed playing Cluedo (Clue in the US market). I soon learned you discovered more from the questions people did not respond to than from those that they did, and developed a matrix from which to plot responses and non-responses. Filling in the matrix soon honed in on the correct answer, who killed whom, with what and where. Science is sometimes like that. The lines of evidence are the questions we put, and if we plot out our matrix, it quickly becomes clear that it is the humans who have caused the rise in CO2 levels, by burning fossil fuels in the twentieth century. Every other hypothesis makes a host of predictions that do not pass the test of the evidence.

[StuM]

Ho Hum! They're back cutting and pasting from Skeptical Science again.

I could produce counter evidence to dispute just about every one of those 10 points and the unsubstantiated claims in that matrix, but I really can't be bothered when it is just another Junk Sceptical Science piece.

[sailorboy1]

-8F at my house this morning

pretty much evidence of this warming up thing

[StuM]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

-8F at my house this morning

pretty much evidence of this warming up thing

Didn't you know that MMGW causes everything including lower temperatures?

Here's a list that gave up trying to keep pace with the alarmism back in 2012. warmlist

[sailorboy1]

[QUOTE=StuM;2046481]Didn't you know that MMGW causes everything including lower temperatures?
/QUOTE]

so you saying it's not the whole planet getting warm, just that some areas are stealing it from somewhere else, got it