>But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995).
You are nitpicking because you don't like Al Gore. Like him or hate him, the fact is that he was in the committees and a great supporter of making the internet more than just a university/arpanet project. He could have blocked it and left it as a research tool, but instead he made the internet it was today. So instead of sniping at him, man-up and accept that he made it happen years before it would have otherwise happened.
I lived through the pre-widely available internet age. I was using the other systems and there was nothing pre-ordained that communications systems would not remain as proprietary hubs possibly interlinking. It is easy to be wise after the event and say it was going to happen anyway, that the techies would make it happen etc. Without serious funding and support, it would not happen. Without government support it was not going anywhere. Give Al Gore his due as he was a key mover.
So whenever i see people trot out "Al Gore invented the internet, hahaha" it seriously pisses me off. Especially as they would have been the first person at the time talking about wasting government money on a research tool with no vision of the future. So STFU.
It was not viable. It was marginal. They struggled. And even if Greenland lost its ice there is no reason to assume the land would be fertile. Most farming land built up humus over many thousands of years.
Agree. i was just trying to answer the earlier question which was what other than H2O produces large flows. Personally i believe it was water but the only other large flows i have seen is lava. I agree it was not lava that did this.
thanks for the link. i will read it fully later on. btw, note some of the items in it....
> Over 10,000 years temperatures rose by as much as 8C
So 10,000 years for an increase gives a lot more time for adaption. Our temperature increases could be over a much shorter period
> lasted for around 100,000 years before the additional CO2 was gradually re-absorbed into natural sinks and temperatures fell back to their original levels.
So, the turnover time for the "natural sinks" to reabsorb the CO2 is a very long time
> Although earth’s climate has changed many times in the past, the key factor for life on earth has been the speed or rate of change.
A key difference yet even with this "slower" change....
> This was a period of rapid extinctions and adaptations as species struggled to adapt to changing environments while facing fierce competition from migrating species (It’s estimated that of speciation and extinction rates quadrupled.).
and this document states...
>The PETM is CO2’s smoking gun, evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations directly influence earth’s temperature.
I will give it a more indepth read later on. The point being that it is not simply the case that we don't need to worry about it as the plants will just take up the CO2. They eventually will but not before mass-extinction of species. Also keep in mind how disruptive this would be given the human population, stressed food supplies (eg fish), political issues of mass migration of people etc. Not exactly a smooth reaction of the environment to the issue of rising CO2
I grew up on a farm and it was obvious that around cattle dung the grass was greener due to both the nutrients and that the dung held moisture longer. This would be obvious to any vaguely observant farmer. The bigger question is whether they would gather it or not. This works well when you have stables as the manure builds up. But would you go around picking up dung? That is time consuming. More likely you would let the animals into the fields after harvest to eat the stalks and leave their dung behind for next year's crop.
In this we can set the outer bound of acceptable conditions
Symbolset, are you saying that somehow we can control the increase in temperature? that we can just stop it when it is acceptable? If so, you truly do not understand the situation we are in. CO2 in the upper atmosphere is the problem and this is long living, possibly for hundreds of years or longer. We are deep doo-doo and not recognising the true extant of the problem is not helping.
vast swaths of terrain in Russia and Canada are opened for agriculture, but is that good? I don't know.
This is straight out of the denier playbook and just confirms you are out of touch with the problem. btw, one note, most people live in the areas that would be affected by a +6C temperature shift. Will the canadians and russians open the door to a couple of billion people? and as noted above just because it is warmer does not make this a new breadbasket. I am not a fan of hyperbole but it is hard to see much upside in these changes.
Well sounds like you are jumping at shadows. I am all for focusing on the science. So i take it from this that all your other responses are just trolls. Back under the bridge with you!
That is a fair question and the answer is not completely known. But the indications are not great. I can turn this around, why are you confident that all will be fine?
Sure, read Skeptical Science. Those quoted figures are from one single location and may not reflect what was happening elsewhere. This site is an excellent example of good science and they have extensive responses to the common denier arguments. I would recommend spending some time there.
Also, keep in mind that the issue is what is forcing the increase. The 400PPM is not going away in our lifetime nor our grandchildren's lifetime. This problem will get worse not better. And of course 12,000 years ago the population was a lot smaller. The total world population probably never exceeded 15 million inhabitants before the invention of agriculture so with 7 Billion people alive today the impact of a warmer environment is likely to be higher than it was 12,000 years ago.
and btw, i am not suggesting we will all die of Anoxia but people who say "The Earth's climate was warmer before than now as little as 12,000 years ago" clearly are not following the science and are just spouting denier rubbish.
Two old WWII Vets are talking... One says, "You know that Salt-Petre they put in our food to stop us thinking about sex? i think it is starting to work".
The moon rocks were stored in vacuum and were in quarantine until deemed safe. The same would happen with Mars rocks though perhaps they might store them in "Mars atmosphere".
It is reasonable to be careful with the unknown but building a moon base stocked with humans in case there is some unknown dangerous virus is perhaps a little extreme.
My point on the other risks but just to say that people are not good at assessing relative risk. Mars rocks pose little or no risk yet we have known risks that could wipe out, or wipe out most of humanity. So in the rank of things to worry about Mars rocks are way way down the list. Not that we should not take reasonable precautions. We face more risk with digging up remains from the bubonic plague but they did just that recently. I would be interested in hearing how a Mars virus might cause a problem for Earth. Really bad viruses actually cause the least problem since they kill off their hosts before they can spread. eg Ebola. viruses like the measles and influenza have been more successful (from their viewpoint) simply because they are less dangerous. A Mars virus is unlikely to have the mechanisms to infect humans. if it did that would truly be a very long shot. Humans are exposed to animal viruses all the time and except in a handful of cases they mostly do us no harm.
Slashdot Mirror
They probably did notice it was a volcano
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Measuring-CO2-levels-from-the-volcano-at-Mauna-Loa.html
>But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995).
You are nitpicking because you don't like Al Gore. Like him or hate him, the fact is that he was in the committees and a great supporter of making the internet more than just a university/arpanet project. He could have blocked it and left it as a research tool, but instead he made the internet it was today. So instead of sniping at him, man-up and accept that he made it happen years before it would have otherwise happened.
I lived through the pre-widely available internet age. I was using the other systems and there was nothing pre-ordained that communications systems would not remain as proprietary hubs possibly interlinking. It is easy to be wise after the event and say it was going to happen anyway, that the techies would make it happen etc. Without serious funding and support, it would not happen. Without government support it was not going anywhere. Give Al Gore his due as he was a key mover.
So whenever i see people trot out "Al Gore invented the internet, hahaha" it seriously pisses me off. Especially as they would have been the first person at the time talking about wasting government money on a research tool with no vision of the future. So STFU.
which he did
Faire enough but it is probably the minority. The majority of hunters are probably doing it for sport.
Except in Spain where trains do not track
unless hacked / infected with a virus
If someone does then stop being friends with them.
How would you know if you are not on Facebook?
Disclosure: i do not use Facebook - so i can be your friend :)
It was not viable. It was marginal. They struggled. And even if Greenland lost its ice there is no reason to assume the land would be fertile. Most farming land built up humus over many thousands of years.
Agree. i was just trying to answer the earlier question which was what other than H2O produces large flows. Personally i believe it was water but the only other large flows i have seen is lava. I agree it was not lava that did this.
Perhaps they are thinking of lava flows such as we have seen on the moon.
thanks for the link. i will read it fully later on. btw, note some of the items in it....
> Over 10,000 years temperatures rose by as much as 8C
So 10,000 years for an increase gives a lot more time for adaption. Our temperature increases could be over a much shorter period
> lasted for around 100,000 years before the additional CO2 was gradually re-absorbed into natural sinks and temperatures fell back to their original levels.
So, the turnover time for the "natural sinks" to reabsorb the CO2 is a very long time
> Although earth’s climate has changed many times in the past, the key factor for life on earth has been the speed or rate of change.
A key difference yet even with this "slower" change ....
> This was a period of rapid extinctions and adaptations as species struggled to adapt to changing environments while facing fierce competition from migrating species (It’s estimated that of speciation and extinction rates quadrupled.).
and this document states...
>The PETM is CO2’s smoking gun, evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations directly influence earth’s temperature.
I will give it a more indepth read later on. The point being that it is not simply the case that we don't need to worry about it as the plants will just take up the CO2. They eventually will but not before mass-extinction of species. Also keep in mind how disruptive this would be given the human population, stressed food supplies (eg fish), political issues of mass migration of people etc. Not exactly a smooth reaction of the environment to the issue of rising CO2
I grew up on a farm and it was obvious that around cattle dung the grass was greener due to both the nutrients and that the dung held moisture longer. This would be obvious to any vaguely observant farmer. The bigger question is whether they would gather it or not. This works well when you have stables as the manure builds up. But would you go around picking up dung? That is time consuming. More likely you would let the animals into the fields after harvest to eat the stalks and leave their dung behind for next year's crop.
In this we can set the outer bound of acceptable conditions
Symbolset, are you saying that somehow we can control the increase in temperature? that we can just stop it when it is acceptable? If so, you truly do not understand the situation we are in. CO2 in the upper atmosphere is the problem and this is long living, possibly for hundreds of years or longer. We are deep doo-doo and not recognising the true extant of the problem is not helping.
vast swaths of terrain in Russia and Canada are opened for agriculture, but is that good? I don't know.
This is straight out of the denier playbook and just confirms you are out of touch with the problem. btw, one note, most people live in the areas that would be affected by a +6C temperature shift. Will the canadians and russians open the door to a couple of billion people? and as noted above just because it is warmer does not make this a new breadbasket. I am not a fan of hyperbole but it is hard to see much upside in these changes.
> And they'll do it without killing too many people
Gee i feel better already
Plants hovering up the CO2 is a common Denier Myth. Do you have cites for how that works?
And do we need to release 100% of CO2 before it is a problem? Or are you just trying to spin the argument?
Well sounds like you are jumping at shadows. I am all for focusing on the science. So i take it from this that all your other responses are just trolls. Back under the bridge with you!
That is a fair question and the answer is not completely known. But the indications are not great. I can turn this around, why are you confident that all will be fine?
No i didn't post it. You did. You are confused about that?
No i am not a charlatan planning to reap profits from fear and uncertainty. Why, are you giving lessons?
Sure, read Skeptical Science. Those quoted figures are from one single location and may not reflect what was happening elsewhere. This site is an excellent example of good science and they have extensive responses to the common denier arguments. I would recommend spending some time there.
Also, keep in mind that the issue is what is forcing the increase. The 400PPM is not going away in our lifetime nor our grandchildren's lifetime. This problem will get worse not better. And of course 12,000 years ago the population was a lot smaller. The total world population probably never exceeded 15 million inhabitants before the invention of agriculture so with 7 Billion people alive today the impact of a warmer environment is likely to be higher than it was 12,000 years ago.
and btw, i am not suggesting we will all die of Anoxia but people who say "The Earth's climate was warmer before than now as little as 12,000 years ago" clearly are not following the science and are just spouting denier rubbish.
How does "Once all trapped CO2 will be released" [in the future] equate to "400 PPM" which we have already past.
Perhaps your reading skills need a polish.
Ya make one small mistake and they never let you forget it!
Two old WWII Vets are talking... One says, "You know that Salt-Petre they put in our food to stop us thinking about sex? i think it is starting to work".
And this is why people laugh at Deniers as they have no idea of the science or the problem.
The moon rocks were stored in vacuum and were in quarantine until deemed safe. The same would happen with Mars rocks though perhaps they might store them in "Mars atmosphere".
It is reasonable to be careful with the unknown but building a moon base stocked with humans in case there is some unknown dangerous virus is perhaps a little extreme.
My point on the other risks but just to say that people are not good at assessing relative risk. Mars rocks pose little or no risk yet we have known risks that could wipe out, or wipe out most of humanity. So in the rank of things to worry about Mars rocks are way way down the list. Not that we should not take reasonable precautions. We face more risk with digging up remains from the bubonic plague but they did just that recently. I would be interested in hearing how a Mars virus might cause a problem for Earth. Really bad viruses actually cause the least problem since they kill off their hosts before they can spread. eg Ebola. viruses like the measles and influenza have been more successful (from their viewpoint) simply because they are less dangerous. A Mars virus is unlikely to have the mechanisms to infect humans. if it did that would truly be a very long shot. Humans are exposed to animal viruses all the time and except in a handful of cases they mostly do us no harm.