Slashdot Mirror
'Great Dying': Rapid Warming Caused Largest Extinction Event Ever, Report Says (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Rapid global warming caused the largest extinction event in the Earth's history, which wiped out the vast majority of marine and terrestrial animals on the planet, scientists have found. The mass extinction, known as the "great dying," occurred around 252m years ago and marked the end of the Permian geologic period. The study of sediments and fossilized creatures show the event was the single greatest calamity ever to befall life on Earth, eclipsing even the extinction of the dinosaurs 65m years ago. Up to 96% of all marine species perished while more than two-thirds of terrestrial species disappeared. The cataclysm was so severe it wiped out most of the planet's trees, insects, plants, lizards and even microbes.
The researchers used paleoceanographic records and built a model to analyze changes in animal metabolism, ocean and climate conditions. When they used the model to mimic conditions at the end of the Permian period, they found it matched the extinction records. According to the study, this suggests that marine animals essentially suffocated as warming waters lacked the oxygen required for survival. The great dying event, which occurred over an uncertain timeframe of possibly hundreds of years, saw Earth's temperatures increase by around 10C (18F). Oceans lost around 80% of their oxygen, with parts of the seafloor becoming completely oxygen-free. Scientists believe this warming was caused by a huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions, potentially caused by volcanic activity.
The researchers used paleoceanographic records and built a model to analyze changes in animal metabolism, ocean and climate conditions. When they used the model to mimic conditions at the end of the Permian period, they found it matched the extinction records. According to the study, this suggests that marine animals essentially suffocated as warming waters lacked the oxygen required for survival. The great dying event, which occurred over an uncertain timeframe of possibly hundreds of years, saw Earth's temperatures increase by around 10C (18F). Oceans lost around 80% of their oxygen, with parts of the seafloor becoming completely oxygen-free. Scientists believe this warming was caused by a huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions, potentially caused by volcanic activity.
"Garden hose doesn't cause wet grass because rain does that."
Ezekiel 23:20
Carbon, amazingly, doesn't care where it comes from.
And yes there are other sources. In the case of the Great Dying, a giant asteroid slammed into Siberia turning it into a gigantic lava bed.
See any 13 million square kilometre lava beds recently? Or giant asteroid strikes?
No?
Then the lesson you learn is that rapid climate change is deadly because it is rapid. The fact that temperatures have been more extreme than during that time doesn't matter.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Mass extinctions often occur at such changeovers. Be extra careful around these times, and check your insurance is valid.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Burning fossil fuel. And eventually killing the ecosystem and itself. Not entirely unlikely. Scientist have been toying with this thought. Ours really isn't that old and we're screwing up the planet already, big time.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Something good scientists keep in mind. Keep in mind as well that multiple diverse and uncorrellated models are also important usually for reasons you may never discover. Also scientists will examine recent events that may mirror older events in some very small way and perhaps more clues can help build even better models. There is always a chance you run into bad luck, statistically speaking
that it really doesn't matter what humans do, or don't do, , because when it's time for mass extinction, it's time for mass extinction? Because 252m years ago, there were no people around to cause this.
I guess there should be some hue and cry about escaping Earth, and creating other places as biological refuges, but I don't know if we actually deserve it.
Yep, all them models of quantum mechanics we use to build computer chips? Complete bollocks. Those models we use to build bridges and skyscrapers to figure out the loads and stress, utter garbage since they are always falling down...hmmmm...not yet, you say? Given enough time, they will and show your model theory is correct. You should tell the scientists about this, I'm sure they'd listen to you.
Why would you think that? You wouldn't be Mike Pence would you? Kill'em all, let G-d sort'em out.
There also is a theory that a giant asteroid struck Antarctica and the Siberian Traps were antipodal to the impact.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I used to have a policy to go to a good restaurant for agood steak and bottle of red every time a spike in alarmist reports hit. Now Ihad to change that as I have neither time nor money and it became detrimental to my health to go there every so often. But this report deserves it. This much dying predicted means I can order a second bottle or invite a hooker too.
I remember reading that the Great Dying was triggered by methane-producing bacteria. The theory said that their methane-producing metabolic cycle was a new development. But the mentioned lack of oxygen in the oceans would give a big rise to such bacteria anyway.
Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas.
So rapid warming has happened before?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Ironically, the Green House effect is a purely quantum mechanical one. We can calculate the absorption spectrum of small molecules down to 10 digits, including those of carbon dioxide, water and methane.
If the dinosaurs had all bought $60,000+ Tesla's this could have been avoided.
Right? We used to think the sun was a god, until we learned better. Now we know there is no sun.
I live in Genoa, you insensitive clod!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
no return Venus-like
No one ever claimed "Venus like" except idiots like you.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
One of the major drivers given for this warming has been hypothesized as mass ignition of coal beds, caused by either volcanism or an asteroid strike. That would convert a relatively local catastrophe into world climate change.
Yes, I am going to keep posting this until you knot-heads get it.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's not global climate change that's driving this, it's local habitat disruption. Global climate change creates local habitat disruption, but so do other things, like people introducing non-native species to a locality, or hunting a local keystone species to extinction.
You are thinking as if the only kind of "cause" is one that is both necessary and sufficient. Climate change, exotic species introduction, human predation, human transformation of landscape for agriculture or development... none of these are both necessary and sufficient causes of a mass extinction. It doesn't mean they can't contribute to one.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Carbon dioxide just sits in the atmosphere, lets the sunlight pass, but absorbs the thermal radiation coming up from the Earth's surface, heats up in the process and causes raising temperatures.
MCCOY: Captain, I see on your report Flavius was killed. I am sorry. I liked that huge sun worshiper.
SPOCK: I wish we could have examined that belief of his more closely. It seems illogical for a sun worshiper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a primitive superstition religion.
UHURA: I'm afraid you have it all wrong, Mister Spock, all of you. I've been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves, the empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion. But he couldn't. Don't you understand? It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God.
KIRK: Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now.
MCCOY: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood.
SPOCK: It will replace their imperial Rome, but it will happen in their twentieth century.
KIRK: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again? Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Ahead warp factor one.
CHEKOV: Aye, sir.
However, you should thank them; that irrelevant little gaff is the only flaw you can exploit.
Back in the 90s my wife worked for a large public water authority serving over a million people. She attended a board meeting in which the IT department presented a proposal to acquire this new thing called "anti-virus".
When one of the board members heardhow much this would cost, he balked. When challenged by other board members as to what they should do about computer viruses, this was his response: "We don't have to do anything. We've spent millions of dollars on these systems, and the integrity of those systems will protect them."
In other words, he didn't have any specific justification for his position, he was just certain they didn't need to do anything about the problem. He was certain because that's what his gut was telling him. And his gut was telling him that because he didn't like what he'd have to do if it were a problem.
This is, in fact, the way most people think. Only people trained in specific disciplines like science think differently, and with social media it's very easy to construct an information bubble in which science sounds outlandish, because everyone knows Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Hondurans are the same species we are, dimwit.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And here I thought Trump only posted on Twitter.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
there's not problem. Folks know there's a problem, but the average person is living paycheck to paycheck (60-80% of them, depending on if you define "paycheck to paycheck" as "very little in the bank" or "not a dime in the bank").
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: Climate change is years from now, rent's due at the end of the month. If you want folks to care about climate change you have to solve their short term economic problems. That means taxes. If you're making good money (figure $300k/yr+) your taxes are going up to fund public works projects. Also we're gonna have to pull back on all those wars and, well, let's not mince words, your stock portfolio profits handsomely from the Military Industrial Complex...
Still, unless we do something about working class Americans then they're gonna keep voting climate change deniers in office because anything we can do about Climate change is likely to cost them money, and they're barely making it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If I hadn't already used all my mod points, I *would* commence downvoting you. If you don't have a model to justify your conclusions, then you're guessing essentially at random. If you don't know or understand your model, you don't have much reason to trust it.
That said, a model is no guarantee of the correct answer. It's just that not having a model *is* almost a guarantee of the wrong answer.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Neither side is accurate. Oil companies prefer to keep the profits and hedge their bets by investing in alternative energy. The left side is just ridiculous I don't need to explain what is wrong with it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Disagree. Every physical process that doesn't involve gravitation can, in principle, be accurately modeled by a quantum theory based model to any desired degree of precision. We're still looking for exceptions.
The problem with something like the greenhouse effect is that it's so large that no feasible quantum theory based model exists. We can't even accurately model the atoms in a liter of air, because the equations get too hairy.
So it's perfectly reasonable to say that the Greenhouse Effect is purely quantum, it's just unreasonable to try to model it that way. A good quantum model would be completely accurate (AFAIKT), but would be so computationally intractable as to be unusable. (Any claim that you've seen WRT a quantum model of the Greenhouse Effect has either lied or made so many simplifying assumptions that you can't trust it.)
That said, particular interactions that go into the Greenhouse Effect can be thoroughly and precisely modeled, and used as input into a classical model. And I'm sure that's what is being referred to.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In the 1970s, greenhouse effect models correctly predicted that the aerosol cooling trend that dominated global climate between 1940 and 1980 would be reversed in the coming decades. And if you apply an impulse response filter (like moving average) to smooth out year-to-year weather effects, the predictions of those models as to global temperature anomalies hold up extremely well.
This is the strongest possible confirmation you can have for a scientific hypothesis, which is why the burden of proof is on people who make claims like the earth is not warming, or that anthropogenic CO2 emissions can't drive climate change. You can call the people who support AGW "chicken littles", but here's the thing: even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. The emotional basis of your beliefs has no relevance at all. It's what you claim and how you support it.
You can be a Young Earth creationist and a good scientist, as long as you don't make any unsupportable creationist claims in a scientific forum. In church you can say anything you damn well please.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
> the belief communism really, really, really, really will work this time!
Oh but it does. It prevents Western governments and corporations from stripping away absolutely all the labor rights acquired in the nineteen century, and that allowed a middle class to grow; which is the way that communism has always worked.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
tl;dr : modeling climate, based on quantum mechanical systems, is like trying to run an emulator of IBMs Summit supercomputing system on a Galaxy S5. Your FPS is gonna suck.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Whenever I see this, I know the conclusions are bollocks.
The only way to know something which is demonstrably false is to be an idiot.
The original IPCC report had climate models in it. The climate agreed with the future predictions to within the error bars, demonstrating the models were not in fact bollocks.
Now, please start my inevitable downvoting.
Yes if you post something that stupid it will get downmodded.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It would be great if we could cause rapid warming in these two states.
Yep they are an oaffront to reality what with being all liberal and regulation heavy yet also being commercial powerhouses. The solution to reality defing people is to destroy them.
FFS if you don't like California or New York don't go and live there. There are plenty of states to choose from which they susidise.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Don't read the paper. If you did you would see that the model results are correlated with empirical evidence (extinction of species via disappearance from the fossil record). In a way that's pretty clever, and since the fossil evidence comes from a different research group, probably correct. Then you would have to realize that your comment is inane.
See my comment above. You obviously haven't read the paper. You can quibble with the quality of experimental confirmation, but kindly do so from a position of actual understanding.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is humanity now trying to beat this record event?
I think you haven't read the paper and sound frankly pretty silly arguing about it. I think you get your daily dose of confirmation bias and confuse it with actual knowledge.
For linking to the pic, I'd mod you up. For the rest of it? I dunno. Why? Read:
Know what 99.999999% of every human on the planet prioritizes above all else? Day to day survival, and making their lives work, taking care of their families, and so on. They don't have TIME or ENERGY to think about things this big. So blaming them for propping up oil companies is bullshit so far as I'm concerned. There's supposed to be bigger brains with a more farsighted vision of things taking care of the long-term plans, with a sense of ethics and morality to serve the interests of all, so that the common person can take care of their own day to day business and survival. Clearly we do not have that; we have out-of-control capitalism, The Few (i.e. The Rich) only concerned really with This Quarters' Profits, and whether the Earth is habitable 100 years from now or now? That's someone else's problem so far as they're concerned, they'll be DEAD by then so why should they care so long as they have The Good Life NOW. Then there's the extreme religious types, who think the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that it's All Going To End Soon anyway, that the Apocalypse is coming, nothing can stop it, so why should they bother? Jesus is going to come take The Faithful home to Heaven anyway, why should they bother? The worst of those, they think hurrying along the demise of the Earth and all life on it, will make Jesus come back sooner, so they can go to Heaver with him sooner. This, of course, is not only a perversion of their own beliefs, it's utter and complete NONSENSE.
We have to rein in out-of-control corporations, we have to rein in The Rich, somehow, and prevent them all from fucking over the Earth and all living things on it, before it's too late -- and it may already BE too late. The one-two-ten-few thousand banding together won't do it. Governments have to be sent a clear unmistakable message that this will no longer be tolerated and make THEM rein in The Few who would sell our future, the future of the Earth, for a few bucks in profit TODAY. The sad fact is: good bloody luck getting anyone to organize anything. There may need to be a die-back of all living things, 99% of all humans dying, before any of it can be made to stop. Human civilization may just not be worthy to be the custodian of the Earth.
Let's face the sad, dirty little fact: the 'average person' is not very smart, and can't really think very far in the future, either. The science of most things is so far over their heads, that they'd sooner believe they're being swindled out of something.
Short story: I used to know a guy who told me once that he thought he could put a bunch of little electric generators with propellers mounted on them on the hood of his car, and get 'free energy', that he'd somehow route to a motor that would improve his gas mileage. No matter how I tried to explain it to him, he just plain would not believe that the losses would far exceed the gains, and that the added air resistance would actually make his fuel economy worse. He literally believed something like this troll image was real. Nothing would persuade him differently.
The above story is more-or-less the Average Person when it comes to science. What's worse: take the average person and add religion? It's even worse, they not only believe most science is bullshit intended to trick them, they believe science is EVIL and Satanic and they're trying to mislead them away from their God. That's the sort of icecream-headache-causing nonsense we're fighting against here.
Do you think you can take a moment to put things in perspective? Here, let me help you:
Politics: very short-lived. Less than a human lifetime.
The future of life on Earth: Measured in millions of years
Please get your priorities straight, okay? Once you do then go help two others do the same. And they'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so on, and so on..
*facepalm*
The great dying was caused by volcanism, not an asteroids.
To be fair the moderation points isn't there for "I disagree" but rather for "this comment is off-topic or here to only cause trouble" which shouldn't be taken as the same. That doesn't change that the modern way to moderate content is to focus on removing what you don't agree with. Sadly. But it may be too late to try to change that now. If you stop it just mean the other side wins.
This is why science works and why "do science." Our instincts are often incorrect, and the scientific method helps us learn more about what actually might be going on.
The funny thing about people complaining about Trump at the funeral, they generally wouldn't know the Apostles Creed from Apollo Creed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Except that doesn't explain what "Overrated" and "Underrated" are for. These require an explicit judgement of the content even when it is on-topic.
It's not as though this problem is new, either. It was broken when it was first implemented, as are all similar reader voting schemes for the same reasons. No one should expect popularity contests to produce good results.
Society is hyper-partisan. You expect moderation to be corrupted by that, not be a solution for it.
It sure doesn't seem like you agree with him entirely. At most charitable, it would seem you are helping make his point by being exactly the kind of person he is describing.
Again, wrong. Try catching up. Everything said in that post is well presented and uncontroversial.
Again, a poster child of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You just became the poster-boy for everything I was talking about, yes. We're a chronically short-sighted species of cavemen who are rushing headlong to their own extinction, and who knows if there'll even be another species to take our place in 1,000,000 years? Maybe the dolphins? Maybe racoons? Who knows.
1. It does include margins of error
2. The predictions made in prior reports have actually come true to within the margin of error
3. "Probably doesn't" is something only an idiot who has never read something would say. So you're admitting you don't know what something is saying, but are saying it's wrong anyway. Also you've done no research whatsoever to find out if it is wrong, even by asking people who'd know.
It's hard to quantify the level of idiocy necessary to write the two comments you've written, but if we build a model to determine your lack of intelligence based upon those comments, I can pretty much guess that the "error bars" are going to be fairly narrow.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Disagree. Every physical process that doesn't involve gravitation can, in principle, be accurately modeled by a quantum theory based model to any desired degree of precision.
There's no way to accurately model planetary atmospheres without involving gravity, so the poster who said "The Greenhouse Effect is no more "purely" quantum mechanical than a cow is "purely" spherical." is correct, even if he didn't know why.
Also, the poster who said "Ironically, the Green House effect is a purely quantum mechanical one." is also mistaken because a correct model of the so-called Green House effect depends upon interactions between the layers of the atmosphere. And those layers are due to gravity, among other things.
I had one of these friends too. It's not the best example to use though, because he is stupid but not as wrong as you think.
That can actually work, but the energy comes from a velocity differential between the wind and surface rather than magically excessive drag mitigation. For going downwind, you have to switch to letting the wheels power the fans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
This article says around 60,000 years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
If you cared so much about CO2 you would stop living your excessive first world lifestyle which produces so god damned much of it.
I'm offended. Second world lifestyle, bitch.
Ezekiel 23:20
You're not helping!
Note that even if Slashdot invented a perfect moderation system, a good percentage of the people would leave rather than see their misconceptions challenged.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What model are you talking about, exactly?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah, I know that out side of tiny "proof of principle" models it can't be done. But I was objecting to a particular statement. The assertion that models weren't useful. Without a model your decisions would be worse than throwing darts at a dartboard after being blindfolded, and spun around a few times...and the dart board moved randomly. (Did you notice that I'm building a model?)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well, yes. I wasn't defending that the greenhouse effect could be modeled with a quantum model. But my caveat was because the various gravitational extensions proposed for quantum theory haven't been validated. They do exist, and, as far as we can measure, they are correct. (We just can't measure very much. And they're clearly wrong in extreme cases where we can compare them with relativity in areas where relativity has been validated. I'm not sure what decimal the inconsistency would show up in, though, as they aren't *that* bad. Just don't try to do the math.)
P.S.: If some real expert wants to chime in, that's fine with me. I'm merely an interested amateur, and it's been multiple decades since I looked a tensor in the face.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
that would be a short term solution that would eventually bite you in the ass. The goal is to give them stable lives with a modicum of comfort and family life.
What I'm advocating has already happened in large parts of Europe and the UK (though the UK is regressing and Europe is trying to).
Finally, Money corrupting the system is just a symptom. If folks felt more secure then all the money in the world would prevent them from addressing climate change.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
are just regular fires. Disasters happen. Folks are used to that.
Doing something on climate change would only benefit their checks if it lead to new jobs for the folks who'll be put out of work. A lot of climate change proponents are just asking people to cut back. They want to fix the climate problems for their own reasons, but they don't want to pay for all that infrastructure spending. That kind of infrastructure needs government backing to make happen. And that means taxes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Mostly correct. CO2 does not stay around forever, there's natural feedbacks, plants are obvious, there's also the cycle where more CO2 causes warming which causes more evaporation and more rain, which leads to more weathering of silicates which bind CO2 into rock. In just a few thousand years, if we stopped adding CO2, it would drop back down to about 300ppm.
This cycle is also a climate driver on geological time scales. Lots of new mountains capture more rain and have lots of silicates to get weathered, CO2 drops. Large continents with no rain in the interiour, less weathering and CO2 goes up.
Water vapor is also important as a green house gas, without it, the Earth would be something like -25C average and an iceball.
I also wonder what will happen if we really start launching rockets, with water vapor exhaust in the high altitudes where currently there is no water vapor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It says an "interval of 60 ± 48 ka", which is consistent with both my comment and the part of the article you quoted so I'm not sure what your problem is.
It's a pity there isn't a "-1: No they wouldn't, that's ridiculous!" mod.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Again, it is just a bad example. I am a physicist, and the turbines on a car misconception is one of those exceptions that is actually viable for certain conditions, which may be why some people intuitively cling to it.
Consider a car at rest pointing into the wind. The fans generate power while no work is done by the wheels and nothing is lost to drag. Obviously some forward motion is possible before things come to equilibrium. Working it out, that equilibrium happens at a bit faster than the windspeed.
So it won't work on a highway commute (and would in fact be detrimental) but it isn't a totally wrong direction for casual intuition to take you. Sailboats sail into the wind, using the wind speed differential as power in an analogous way.
The above story is more-or-less the Average Person when it comes to science. What's worse: take the average person and add religion? It's even worse, they not only believe most science is bullshit intended to trick them, they believe science is EVIL and Satanic and they're trying to mislead them away from their God. That's the sort of icecream-headache-causing nonsense we're fighting against here.
What's even worse are the people who think they are smarter than everybody else, that treat scientists as the new priesthood class, but are wearing their own intellectual blinders.
Climategate showed scientists were willing to chop off decades worth of proxy data because it didn't match the recent warming. That they were willing to deceitfully present the science to the wider public to hide such discrepancies. That they were willing to delete email and data to prevent transparency.
We've seen the wider press be willing to misrepresent the science, creating false narratives about polar bears, for example. We keep hearing every so many years how we have to *act now* or it will be too late, and then get the alarmist message repeated. Alarmism is the mantra of climate science journalism.
How often do we get a reasoned and balanced discussion on climate change? Do we balance the benefits of predicted climate change versus the negative? Do we quantify the cost of drastic carbon reduction, both in human lives and monetarily? Is this a 100-year problem that will be better served tackling it with tomorrow's technology and economy?
They always say sequels never live up to the original. The Great Dying 2: This Time it's Personal! :)
Actually a high percentage of anti-vaxxers are very scientifically literate. Remember, vaccines are pushed by for-profit organizations that tell us things like smoking is healthy and eating fat is bad for you. Remember, it was a scientist that came up with that fat thing, and it was fraudulent science to boot.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Amazingly, there HAS been a rapid change in the environment, and no evidence of a pause.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I think you'll find that I mentioned.... Oh, look! THIRTEEN MILLION SQUARE MILES of lava. And the asteroid? Triggered the lava flows, not the dying in itself.
Amazing.
Christ on a pancake. Does ANYONE bother to read these days? Am I the last person on Earth who can read???
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh but it does. It prevents Western governments and corporations from stripping away absolutely all the labor rights acquired in the nineteen century, and that allowed a middle class to grow; which is the way that communism has always worked.
Well that sure explains why all of those leftwing groups that promote it, are going out of their way to bring everyone down to the same level of misery.
Om, nomnomnom...
Climategate showed scientists were willing to chop off decades worth of proxy data because it didn't match the recent warming. That they were willing to deceitfully present the science to the wider public to hide such discrepancies. That they were willing to delete email and data to prevent transparency.
Except, it did not show that at all. Sure, taken out of context there were some statements that seem damming, but in full context, not so much. Pointing to it as an example of the "dishonesty" of the vast majority of researchers is pretty disingenuous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them."
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." - The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel; United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US).
Except, it did not show that at all.
Except it did. I've looked into it in detail, read both sides of the argument, and everything I said is true.
Pointing to it as an example of the "dishonesty" of the vast majority of researchers is pretty disingenuous.
The researchers involved were heavy hitters and proponents of the "hockey stick", the widely promulgated graph of global warming.
"The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them."
I tried looking up the citation for Wikipedia's claim here, and the direct link did not work. I would like to see an exact quote from the reference that backs up this claim.
Regardless, there's a political climate around propping up the threat of global warming, and a lot of whitewashing going around. Rather than rely on Wikipedia or summaries, I looked at primary sources. I looked at the graphs, the emails, and what, exactly, "hide the decline" referred to.
I looked at how Phil Jones told people to delete email. How he said would rather delete data than give it to climate skeptics. At how the internal debates regarding the uncertainties of climate science was not communicated to the wider public. Quite the opposite, it was actively hidden.
If you want an alternative view, from a Berkeley scientist, watch the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Except, it did not show that at all.
Except it did. I've looked into it in detail, read both sides of the argument, and everything I said is true.
So, they were guilty? And the eight investigations were all wrong? Your decisions on how to properly account for various data sets are more valid than than the researchers, peer reviewers, etc.? I guess if they are all in on it, of course.
Pointing to it as an example of the "dishonesty" of the vast majority of researchers is pretty disingenuous.
The researchers involved were heavy hitters and proponents of the "hockey stick", the widely promulgated graph of global warming.
The graph in question seems to have come up first in 1998 or so. Is saying someone was a proponent of it supposed to be some sort of slur? I guess it is sort of bad to support junk science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I guess over the past twenty years, further data and research has corrected the garbage science.
Oh, that does not seem to be the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
If we were in the position where our political system was working towards understanding the well established science and we were actually talking about the tradeoffs between various courses of action, I think most of the "alarmists" would be much happier. Yes, there are some important things to discuss and decide on. But when there are huge numbers of important people still trying to deny the fundamental issues, it is hard to discuss any sort of way to address the issues.
So, they were guilty? And the eight investigations were all wrong?
I told you, it was a whitewash, easily explained by the political climate around global warming. At the minimum, Phil Jones should have been fired and charged for violating a Freedom of Information request, and telling other people to delete their email. Does this sound like transparent science to you? How science should be done by a top member in their field?
Oh, that does not seem to be the case.
I like how you keep quoting Wikipedia, which has its own bias and relies on biased sources, instead of delving into theactual issues surrounding the graph.
Did you watch the video I linked to by the Berkeley science for an alternative view? Why don't you engage with the actual argument being made?