Slashdot Mirror
Observed Atmospheric CO2 Hits 400 Parts Per Million
symbolset writes "Over the past month a number of individual observations of CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory have exceeded 400 parts per million. The daily average observation has crept above 399 ppm, and as annually the peak is typically in mid-May it seems likely the daily observation will break the 400 ppm milestone within a few days. This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels. For the past few decades the annual peak becomes the annual average two or three years later, and the annual minimum after two or three years more."
No it won't. It's not like politicians and the public have been just sitting on the sidelines, waiting util a value about 400 PPM was observed. I don't believe the public really doubts that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and so a wonky measure of it is pretty irrelevant to public sentiment.
There are groups (misguided in my opinion, but that's not relevant to the question) such as 350.org that want to restrict CO2 levels to 350ppm, feeling that that level is the "trigger" for global warming.
It's not clear to me exactly how much time they propose it will take to get there though. On their web site are some generic words about installing solar panels and stopping fossil fuel subsidies, which I think anybody is generally for. But I don't see anything about how much time they expect this to take even if the world moved to their agenda.
Anybody know?
Ferret From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Why would you take this measurement in such close proximity to one of the most active volcanoes on the planet?
Sounds exactly like the data between 1960 and 1978! And nothing has changed since then! The temperature has stayed exactly the same! Oh, wait.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
And how about when they were 2000 ppm higher?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
Once again I am saddened by The depths to which the Slashdot community has fallen. This used to be a technology site. Technology that could not happen without extremely advanced science. And yet here you are, questioning global warming and the effect of human induced rises in CO2 levels. This stuff has been studied for going on 125 years. There is no doubt what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. It's Grade School physics for goodness sakes. We should be the ones leading the charge to shift away from Fossil Fuels before great harm to our civilization becomes inevitable. But here we are, mired in the same ridiculously simplistic arguments about stuff that has been proven or disproven by science over and over. This isn't a matter of science being wrong, it is a matter of society not being allowed to trust a very small subset of scientists because they threaten a very profitable economic paradigm. Eventually, that will turn, I hope not before it is too late to avoid catastrophe.
Wow, amazing. So don't keep us in suspense, how did all those coastal cities fare during the Jurassic-Triassic?
Once again I am saddened by The depths to which the Slashdot community has fallen. This used to be a technology site. Technology that could not happen without extremely advanced science.
As long as I've been here, it's been a technophile site for advertisting consumer electronics.
This isn't a matter of science being wrong, it is a matter of society not being allowed to trust a very small subset of scientists because they threaten a very profitable economic paradigm.
You've hit the nail on the head. The Slashdot community as a whole touts the virtues of science, unless it's the kind of science that discovers the uncomfortable reality about capitalism and unlimited economic growth. Then they go apeshit and cover their ears as if it makes the evidence go away.
Why does rate of increase seem constant. I mean, if it's influenced by human activity (of which I have no doubt), then shouldn't it track closely to the fluctuations in the global economy. Specifically, shouldn't there be a dip or flat corresponding to the Great Recession periods of '08/'09?
And I wonder how many of the people making claims on here are actually climatologists. I am not and since I don't think there is a giant conspiracy of climatologists, I take my cues about global warming from the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml). Even though I am not a climatologist, I can read, and the IPCC 4th assessment report agrees with you.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Just sayin.'
Exactly my thought... it's like saying "This town stinks" when you visit the evening after their Baked Bean Eating Contest.
That seems a fair, though perhaps somewhat generous, estimate for the ratio of signal to noise here. "News for nerds" has become just another giant Red vs. Blue flamefest. Might as well just turn my attention to my wife's cat pictures on FB.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
That and of course, CO2 isn't the only thing in the air atm, there's methane, sulphur, a three minute monologue's worth of derivatives of those wonderful elements, love, C3PO, CO, R2, and probably a lot of other things that didn't exist in the sepia/black and white toned eras.
Wait! There are droids in the air?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That "danger point" is completely reliant upon the value of the so-called "climate sensitivity" factor, our understanding of which changes each year as we increase our knowledge of the climate system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
There have been numerous studies lately (post IPCC AR4) pointing to a low climate sensitivity factor, which would change the value of "the danger point" upwards from 350 ppm as well (450 ppm IIRC, but that's from memory based on the below mean).
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/gsr_042513_fig1.jpg
(Please see image content, not domain name, for actual references)
it's in my head
There was no substantial damage to any coastal cities during the Jurassic period. However for the Triassic period, scientists have found no evidence that any cities survived the event that separates it from the Jurassic.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Bringing the numbers closer to human-scale, a 300 parts per million is the same as 3 parts per 10,000. Similarly 400 is 4 parts per 10,000. So basically, we've gone from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air.
In the same period, plankton levels have declined over 1% per year since the late 1970's. John Martin at MBARI postulated that the decline was due to a decline of dissolved iron in the oceans. He's quoted as saying "Give me a tanker full of iron and I'll give you an ice age." A series of experiments, IRONEX and SOFEX demonstrated that he was right - adding iron caused the plankton to bloom. The SOFEX bloom lasted longer than the 45 days allotted to collect plankton samples. IRONEX demonstrated that the predators could find the bloom and feed on it.
You want to reduce CO2 levels? Stop hunter-gatherer style fishing and start farming the oceans. Of course, then the problems will be keeping the earth warm enough to avoid another ice age and preventing fish rustlers from making off with your harvest.
Oh wow, good thing you notice! Those scientists are going to be so embarrassed when we tell them they missed that!
After the UK and Alaska has seen a 2 - 5 degree temperature drop since 2000, and cooling global wide many observations are counteracting the global warming models.
As a former Alaskan I can tell you that glacialization has come back the last 3 years and summer temperatures are rapidly falling year after year. So climate != weather but 13 years of data is starting to make a case for a cooler climate regardless of increased CO2.
http://saveie6.com/
Earth's climate was cooler in the late Ordovician period with atmospheric CO2 ~4400ppm. How did that happen if 350ppm is the trigger for global warming?
One cold year says nothing about the trend in the Earth's climate.
Palm trees and 8
Actually, radiative forcing (necessary for the basic assessment of the contribution of the various greenhouse gases to warming) is not 'grade school level physics'. The key problem that any plan to address this warming must deal with is how to address the problem economically. As it turns out, the political compromise to try and build a renewable economy on intermittent low power density sources is entirely misplaced, and it is distracting us from real potential solutions based on nuclear fission/fusion.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/04/terrestrial-energy-will-make-integral.html
To the degree that CO2 levels and climate are causative or correlated, we're still colder now, or at least still cold enough, that significant ice has accumulated on Antarctica since human civilization has bloomed. It's up to 3 miles of ice there in some places, and at the same time as that fresh water is being locked up there, it's going missing from areas like the Sahara and Middle East which are desertifying. Some of the coastlines that humans charted in the mid-millennium (probably the Chinese) are now covered with ice shelves. It's possibly that a warmer climate would reduce the size of that ice pack and return the humidity to the environment.
There's nothing that says that the climate of 1989 is at all ideal for human prosperity - the main bone of contention is that the ocean currents that keep Europe warm could possibly be disturbed by a melting Arctic, which would likely destroy trillions of dollars of property wealth held by influential Northern Europeans. It's really unlikely (Europe wasn't cold the last time the Northwest Passage was open) but why risk it when the costs of avoiding the small probability can be passed on to others?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
it is a matter of society not being allowed to trust a very small subset of scientists
I trimmed your quote, but I think the bit I left is telling. I don't trust them, but I'm I'm not sure who's allowing me this freedom/delusion. Please enlighten me.
The problem is with your understanding of the problem and the implications. Scientists have never said that there are no periods of global warming in the past. They have never said that the Earth will blow up if global warming occurs. The current problem is that we are experiencing global warming now and we are most likely the cause. The second part is that the warming trend may be faster than flora and fauna to adapt. Climate change in the past has occurred at a much slower rate. In the past as it will be in the future, climate change will cause major changes to ecosystems. This has serious ramifications to agriculture for example which will make life harder for the human population.
Sea level rise is another major issue. Historically humans have built population centers near oceans for transportation reasons. These population centers (Venice, New Orleans, New York, Sydney) will have to be relocated.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
100 years of data is high frequency noise on a signal that has a geologic time scale.
Also, it should be noted that the current annual increase in CO2 is about 2 ppm, which this graph shows. And, as can be read here(in danish), the largest fluctuations in the period from A.D. 1000 - 1800 was 7 ppm. So at present we are increasing CO2 levels every four years by more than the biggest fluctuations in said time period; I'm guessing it really is man-made.
To answer your question: during the Eocene optimum, CO2 levels probably were 2000ppm. There was no mass extinction until the end of the Eocene, when temperatures started dropping. Mammals were thriving and greatly diversifying during the Eocene. The P-T extinction was due to other causes, since high CO2 levels and temperatures by themselves do not cause such extinctions.
So-called experts like Hansen very much talk about "extinction level events" and Venus-like conditions. They are either lying or incompetent.
If it's not harmful, what's the problem?
There is absolutely no data to support those statements. Nobody knows how fast climate change or CO2 level increases have occurred in the past, and nobody knows how fast ecosystems can adapt.
That is pure guesswork as well. It is just as reasonable to believe that rising temperatures will lead to a rapid expansion of arable lands, since temperature is one of the major limiting factors.
Sea levels have been rising steadily for the past 100 years. Has that forced us to "relocate" major population centers? Have New York City, Tokyo, or Los Angeles disappeared under the waves?And projecting into the future, theory suggests they can't rise much faster no matter how much we emit, and in practice, they show no signs of accelerating or following CO2 emission patterns. In addition, many coastal areas have been gaining land area, not losing, due to river sediment, and will continue to do so for a long time.
I'm not sure, but might some of the geoengineering approaches to removing carbon from the atmosphere considerably accelerate your estimate? Like for example, iron-fertilizing the oceans to create massive plankton blooms that, hopefully, remove carbon faster?
Not that I'm sure that the proposed geogengineering approaches are GOOD IDEAS, I'm just wondering if reducing CO2 could be done quicker.
--PM
Your anger comes only from your not thinking this problem through to the end. I can't really guarantee that you won't feel less angry afterward though.
Je me souviens.
So-called experts like Hansen very much talk about "extinction level events" and Venus-like conditions. They are either lying or incompetent.
Extinction level event !=instant global explosion. Someone has been watching too many movies. The problem is that climate change is occurring faster the ecosystems can adapt. This is the extinction that is being described. Even then it is not the extinction of all life. It is the extinction of life as we know it as the animals and plants we depend upon go extinct. It may be our extinction.
If it's not harmful, what's the problem?
Um, what? These are five effects of climate change on the ocean alone. Or are you going to argue that a rise in temperature has no effect on any ecosystem? Please prove that.
There is absolutely no data to support those statements. Nobody knows how fast climate change or CO2 level increases have occurred in the past, and nobody knows how fast ecosystems can adapt.
No data?. A simple google search is all you need.
That is pure guesswork as well. It is just as reasonable to believe that rising temperatures will lead to a rapid expansion of arable lands, since temperature is one of the major limiting factors.
What? If it gets hotter in the Midwest US alone, there will be more droughts. This isn't rocket science. And that is one area of the world. And again you completely missed the point: Do you expect all species to suddenly migrate to other areas of the world when it gets warmer? Some species like birds that are very mobile can do this. Normally in nature, change occurs slowly and species adapt but these changes occur over geologic time scales.
Sea levels have been rising steadily for the past 100 years. Has that forced us to "relocate" major population centers? Have New York City, Tokyo, or Los Angeles disappeared under the waves?
So you admit global warming is happening? I guess your argument is indicative of the deniers and their flawed logic. What you say is factually true but ignores the numbers that sea level is rising at an unprecedented rate. From wikipedia:
Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in).
Also from wikipedia
Conference delegates stated “Research presented today at the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen shows that the upper range of sea level rise by 2100 could be in the range of about one meter, or possibly more
Please look at all the cities that will be under water if projections are correct.
And projecting into the future, theory suggests they can't rise much faster no matter how much we emit, and in practice, they show no signs of accelerating or following CO2 emission patterns. In addition, many coastal areas have been gaining land area, not losing, due to river sediment, and will continue to do so for a long time.
Please support this with a citation. Most of the science I've seen shows the opposite.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Read the entire thread. The point is that climate change activists are making outrageous and scientifically unsupported claims.
The pages you point to are wrong in claming that this increase in CO2 or temperature is "unprecedented". The fact is that nobody knows how fast climate has changed over most of earth's history because nothing records it at high resolution.
You're comparing the beliefs of conference participants with historical data to establish an increase in the rate of sea level rise; that isn't valid.
Even at the unreasonably high estimate of 1 m / century from those conference participants, it would take 8000 years to reach the levels depicted in those videos. Not only is that an enormous time period, human civilizations have actually experienced more and faster sea level rise than that during the period of 12000 BC to 4000 BC.
I'm not "denying" anything. I'm pointing out a whole bunch of bullshit that people like you falsely present as scientific fact.
Here's a link on Bangladesh: http://www.scidev.net/en/news/river-sediment-may-counter-bangladesh-sea-level-rise.html There are more recent studies and analyses. Go look for them yourself.
You're saying that with most of the earth's surface covered by water, you think a little more from antarctica would cause the Sahara to become green?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
you do understand that the US is not as densely populated as other countries right? In some places it is a 20 minute drive from your house to the nearest store. 10 minutes to your nearest neighbor.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Its funny how the environmentalists set us back decades by denying nuke power permits, now they are all for them
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
so in other words... everyone, the AGW believers and deniers COULD be wrong.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
A million Tutsis can't be wrong.
As a former Alaskan I can tell you that glacialization has come back the last 3 years and summer temperatures are rapidly falling year after year. So climate != weather but 13 years of data is starting to make a case for a cooler climate regardless of increased CO2.
"global warming" doesn't meant that every point on the globe will warm up by the same amount. It could be that Alaska gets colder, but Brazil gets hotter by a larger amount, for example.
The amount of fresh water is not fixed. The entire ecosphere is a giant solar powered water distillery, sometimes running over production and sometimes under. Delivery can be variable.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Yes. But not the ones you're looking for.
Well, volcanoes have been around for a long time, and they don't only release CO2.
OTOH, it's worth noting that those higher levels probably weren't continuous. Generally they get there when the volcanoes are being more active than usual, and then weather away over a few centuries or millenia.
Another thing to consider is that there weren't any mammals around then. Still, the dinosauria were probably warm-blooded. (Birds are, after all.) And so, probably, were the Therapsids. But it's worth noticing that the monotremes still have very incomplete homeothermism. And much of this life may have originated in Antarctica. (Well, passed throguh it.) So it isn't clear how much life that can survive at current temperatures could also survive at the specified higher temperatures. (I may be getting my geographic periods confused here, though.)
The basic point, however, is that the Earth probably isn't in any danger. Probably not even land living chordate life is in danger. But this doesn't mean that humanity can expect to survive such a drastic change in the environment. And even if humanity can, it's really dubious that any of the forms we currently call civilization can. Bushmen (both Kalahari and Austrailian aborigines) may well be the best adapted to this "brave new world". Or perhaps some polynesians can resurrect their ancestral knowledge. (The old islands may disappear, but rising sea levels should create brand new ones. And small islands tend to have automatic temperature control.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
True, I was meaning more that it can be demonstrated very easily in that sort of setting with a light bulb or flame, vessel full of CO2 and infrared glasses or sensor.
I'm sorry, but sometimes climate change in the past has occurred with extreme rapidity. I'll admit that this usually caused massive extinction events, but you still have the rapid climate change.
Look up the Deccan Traps for one example. Most of the other events are less well documented, but there is good evidence that sudden climate change has happened several times during the history of the Earth.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Kind of a non sequitur there. The 3 miles of ice started accumulating around 34 million years ago, long before human civilization existed.
That's not true, the observations are wrong. And anyway it's not important. And even if was, we're not responsible. Peddling these myths is exactly what I'd expect from leftist, reality-based terrorists
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
> As long as I've been here, it's been a technophile site for advertisting consumer electronics.
You forgot the Microsoft hate and the Apple fan vs Apple hate dialogs.
> You've hit the nail on the head. The Slashdot community as a whole touts the virtues of science, unless it's the kind
> of science that discovers the uncomfortable reality about capitalism and unlimited economic growth. Then they go
> apeshit and cover their ears as if it makes the evidence go away.
Or the evidence that discovers the uncomfortable truths about the open-source and everything-is-free cyber-communist ideology.
Not to mention the convoluted moral arguments about stealing music or movies. It is worse than the angels dancing on the pin of a head theological navel gazing or Marxist debates about the structure of society.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
And breath that breath of fresh air and CO2 you have been long for!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Here's one good reason for discounting anything associated with Roy Spencer: Look up "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" and note who signed it. He's welcome to believe what he likes but he's no scientist. As for the chart itself, that appears to be from the uncorrected version of Loehle's paper, which in any case was published in the Mickey Mouse journal Energy & Environment. What other information do you have that backs up why to trust this single chart rather than other temperature reconstructions?
Largest eruption of 20th cenutry 20 years ago. We may not want too many of these eruptions closely spacing in a row. It could greatly reduce agricultural for several years. And maybe trgiger a mini-cie age.
Kind of a non sequitur there. The 3 miles of ice started accumulating around 34 million years ago, long before human civilization existed.
Started, yes, but as my post said, charted coastlines are now covered with ice shelves, so it's been fairly rapid of late.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You're saying that with most of the earth's surface covered by water, you think a little more from antarctica would cause the Sahara to become green?
That's what's called an example. The global warming alarmists are quick to point out that if the glaciers melt, sea levels will rise catastrophically and the atmosphere will greatly humidify.
I'm merely suggesting that some level of humidification will prove to be beneficial, from areas such as Antarctica to areas such as the Sahara. I don't think it's possible to build a tunnel directly connecting the two.
That environment would not look exactly like 1989's.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Since the peak in 2005. The US should reach the Kyoto treaty goal of 1988 CO2 emission levels in 2014. It is almost there now.
Most of the US reduction was accidental due huge discoveries of cheap natural gas. That has replaces a quarter of more dirty coal production, with much more to come. As Obama vehicle emission laws take effect, CO2 will fall even more.
The hope is that China imitates the US and switches to methane energy production too. China has TWICE the methane resources of the US, but has barely started producing it.
See, *there* is the issue. It's true that Slashdot has changed...but so have many of its users.
It USED to be that people could have a discussion about things, like whether or not global warming is actually happening. Some posters have provided some excellent links to studies that simply can't be refuted, and yet I see posts that say things like "...There is no doubt what has happened..."
I hate to break it to you, but YES THERE IS DOUBT. IAs a scientist having given the data some study, I can tell you it is my evaluation that most of the studies don't pass basic methodology on data collection much less on the conclusions they draw. And the computer simulations that back up most of these studies? Oh my goodness...these people would flunk a simulations class I taught, their code is that bad. To watch armchair scientists scream and yell that there's "consensus" when that is meaningless in the scientific realm is both amusing and grating.
On a technology site one discusses and debates, one does not proclaim "there is no doubt". With science there is always doubt. There are theories which fit the data better than others, but as soon as they fail (such as, say, AGW predictions of an ice free Arctic) there's a need to revisit and, if necessary, discard.
Anti-science is refusing to discuss and debate.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
I have my doubts about the accuracy of charting of Antarctica from the mid-millennium (1500s?) but if you could point to some reference about it I'll take a look. Also you're talking a period of transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age so I'm not surprised if ice shelves increased somewhat.
I think you need to look at it a little more deeply. The increase in water vapor won't be spread out evenly throughout the whole atmosphere. The tropical atmosphere circulation (aka Hadley Cells) where warm moist air rises at the equator and (relatively) cold, dry air descends around 30 degrees (N&S) latitude are the reason most of the worlds great deserts including the Sahara are located where they are. There's even some evidence that the Hadley Cells are expanding a bit due to global warming which could bring the dry air a bit further north and south than it is now which is bad news for Southern Europe and the American Southwest.
Definitely.. get 'em all talking about CO2.. That way nobody'll notice all the methane hydrates all bubbling out.. Controlling CO2 emissions is something we can pat our selves on the ole back about, while feeling good an' cozy that we're "helping out".. Since all the methane coming out of the GOM, and the N. & S. poles, is something we *can't* control (well, we *could* ban dairy farmers and their farting cows ;-).. besides, all that global "warming" is gonna push us into another ice age, so just think of all that good ole heating fuel we get to burn.. and the sheep famers who get to sell all that wool
More like "the evening after the advertised start of the one-day baked bean eating contest, as people are accelerating eating their beans (and their neighbour's beans) and the atmosphere is starting to get rank". Meanwhile people are ignoring the bones of people laying in the dirt, in poses of contorted agony, amid fossilized signs advertising past baked bean eating contests.
It's not the most wonderful of analogies, but there are important points of comparison left out.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I think that you need to speak to a better palynologist.
I do speak to palynologists, regularly, for geosteering decisions in horizontal oil wells, during the time period when the major faunal changes of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum were happening. Even I can see the differences in the fauna across the slides, and I sure ain't a palynologist. I probably couldn't play one convincingly on TV.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Hmmm, being cynical, the transportation facilities will have to be moved. The people can look after themselves. But you can't expect those wharves and quays and cranes and railroads to move themselves. But you can expect a (wet) human to eventually get up and move themselves. Modern transportation facilities don't need a lot of people to operate them.
No, I'm not that cynical. But I know an entire class of politicians who are.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
He's right - but in an irrelevant sense. There are indeed plenty of areas where recent deposition of sediment has lead to a local increase in land area. Whether you consider flushing topsoil from agricultural areas into the sea to try to build new land to be an effective use of the soil though, is another question. Putting on the hat from my year of soil science courses at uni, I think that you could get better production from even very poor soil than by treating it like that - but what the fuck would I know? I only spent a year studying the subject.
Whether there is a net increase in land area is a much more contentious claim. If, indeed, the GPP is making that claim. It's also a very complex question. Looking locally, we've got accumulation onto beaches, due to erosion of the adjacent mountain area ; but we've also got isostatic rebound (from the loss of the glaciers a few millennia ago) also helping land to emerge from the sea ; but at the other end of the country (where my family used to be mariners), the same glacial rebound is leading to subsidence of the land into the sea (because of flow in the asthenosphere) ; then there's the regional subsidence pattern that's due to (essentially) the Alps falling down and begin dumped into the North Sea via the Rhine - of which the Thames is generally a small tributary (I don't normally bother to count the Southern North Sea as being a "real" sea : you can see the sun from the bottom of it!).
Oh, and on top of that, you've got the eustatic changes from changes in ocean temperature and melting of land-bound ice. And that's just in one country.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
What? That doesn't work?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
That'll have to change. And indeed, I'm sure it will.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Huh? What? Where can I get some? Hang on, is that physically possible? You'd have to use some material that would combine IR photons to form a visible photon.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You have a chart of some sort, which asserts to be a map of the Antarctic coastline from around 1500CE, and you don't know it's origins. So ... how do you get that assertion of it being Antarctic coastline? There's a global orientation map? Or there's writing? Writing can (generally) be dated and it's origin determined.
My bullshit detector is honking away furiously. Citation please.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Burning non-fossil fuels means releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which has been removed from the atmosphere in the recent past. And unless you're involved in active de-forestation (not many people are), then most of the time you're also planting replacement trees, which themselves will absorb carbon dioxide in significant quantities in the coming years.
Burning fossil fuels is much worse than burning "biomass"
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
There is something deliciously ironic about that image. At least, there is if you think where the Saxons came from.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You thought wrongly.
My tree planting efforts in the middle of the North Atlantic and on the Greenland ice sheets have not been unmitigated successes. Also my avocado plantation on the Siberian tundra has yet to yield fruit. Or leaves. Or stems. I think instead of trying to plant trees where they don't grow now, I'll try slashing and burning a few thousand square km of existing woodland to make room for my carbon dioxide-absorbing forest. Or won't that help?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
But I must disagree on one point :
No they weren't ; no matter how "special" you personally think you are, there was no intention that went into the apparent design of you or any other organism. You (and all your ancestors, all the way back) are simply the descendants of the ones that didn't die.
Oh, sorry ; second point :
I used to think that. Having studied the matter more (wearing my geologist's hat, with a considerable educated amateur interest in the evolution of humans), I reluctantly have to concede that eating small quantities of meat is a normal part of the diet of members of the genus Homo. That's you, me and probably everyone who has ever posted on Slashdot.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
As long as the article's a dupe, I'll dupe my reply:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf (from 2008)
"The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."
This explains thoroughly that
a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).
-Styopa
As I'd posted Beck's link to a number of threads on AGW, I wanted to post my response to some other links as well:
I just want to say thanks to some /. posters, in particular for the realclimate links (Rabett is a little too snarky for me) - specifically http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/ [realclimate.org] .
The article is interesting, as is especially the commentary, in which people raise a number of well-informed questions and get well-informed answers.
I'm trying to honestly evaluate the claims of AGW as best I can as a layman. I'm not a climate scientist, and I'll admit, I have been made suspicious by the quasi-religious tone of the exercise (starting with Mr Gore) and the unquestioning adulatory tenor of its supporters (a Nobel and Academy Award for him, really?).
Anyway, I sincerely appreciate anything that increases my understanding of the science and details.
As a layman, it seems irrefutable that there is warming taking place. It seems that CO2 has recently spiked, and that makes anecdotal sense given the intense and constant consumption of hydrocarbons since industrialization.
However...the point of the AGW creed is not merely to prove warming or CO2. It is, in fact, to assert:
1) that the sole (or at least dominant cause) for global warming (later amended to 'changing climate' - hah) is human activity, AND
2) that this is an unmitigated catastrophe, AND
3) the only solution is expanding government control of the activities of individuals "for their own good".
#1 seems true.
#2 may certainly be true in the short run for people in coastal cities, but let's be honest, these very-human things were never established in their current locations based on their durability/safety, and in long enough timescales the survivability of anything approaches zero. Nothing is permanent, not even stuff that we deem "really important or inconvenient to change".
#3 certainly doesn't logically follow either of the others, particularly considering some of the people volunteering (out of their own good nature) to be the ones making the decisions.
-Styopa
I think your link is wrong, can you repost it?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."