Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Ah fuck it, why bother, it's all over anyway.

Life on earth to vanish ‘within a billion years’
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
All animals and plants will vanish from the Earth within the next billion years, a new study suggests.

By John von Radowitz
Ironically, Armageddon is going to arrive as a result of too little, rather than too much, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Currently, experts are trying to find ways to cut levels of the greenhouse gas to prevent global warming running out of control.

But as the Sun ages and grows hotter, greater evaporation and chemical reactions with rainwater will take away more and more carbon dioxide.

In less than a billion years, its levels will be too low for photosynthesising plants to survive, say scientists. When that happens, life as we know it on Earth will cease to exist.

With the loss of plants, herbivorous animals will also die out, as well as the carnivores that prey on them.

Eventually microbes will be all that remains — and for the majority of them even their days will be numbered. After another billion years, the oceans will have dried out completely leaving only the hardiest bugs.

“The far-future Earth will be very hostile to life by this point,” said astro-biologist Jack O’Malley-James, from the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

“All living things require liquid water, so any remaining life will be restricted to pockets of liquid water, perhaps at cooler, higher altitudes or in caves underground.”

The surviving organisms would also have to cope with extreme high temperatures and intense ultraviolet radiation, he said.

Mr O’Malley-James made his bleak forecast at the National Astronomy Meeting taking place at the University of St Andrews.

The predictions are based on a computer simulation of the impact long-term changes to the Sun are likely to have on Earth.

As the Sun ages over the next billion years or so, it is expected to remain stable but to grow steadily brighter.

Good job, Harry. Starting with obfuscation, a nutty theory that rising temperatures cause the CO2 to rise. Makes as much sense as the claim the flow of blood causes the heart to beat. Then diversion by a vision of the future in 1 billion years from now, perfectly off topic.

Earth may be uninhabitable only 500 Million years from now. That is why SpaceX founder Elon Musks suggests to settle Mars now. See the space thread.

But that is really really unrelated to Climate Change caused by CO2 now.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Good job, Harry. Starting with obfuscation, a nutty theory that rising temperatures cause the CO2 to rise. Makes as much sense as the claim the flow of blood causes the heart to beat. Then diversion by a vision of the future in 1 billion years from now, perfectly off topic.

Obfuscation?

Can I suggest you read this article carefully if you have a few minutes?

Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic? | NASA

I'm waiting for Rainfall to comment on my "obfuscation".

Make a poll: who would have thought that your post 1100 was meant to express 1104? I start with 'I didn't'.

Yes I read the article.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Yes I read the article.

So tell me what's nutty about that "theory" of rising temperatures causing CO2 levels to rise then?

Your original statement was "The way I see it, there is one big question to answer: Is a rising level of CO2 a cause of temperature rise, or an effect?" The permafrost wouldn't be melting without the CO2 put it in air by burning fossil fuels. Your article is mainly about methane, that's not CO2.

Funny how the drum keeps beating but no fucker's dancin'!

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Funny how the drum keeps beating but no fucker's dancin'!

Al Gore is.

All the way to the bank...

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Your original statement was "The way I see it, there is one big question to answer: Is a rising level of CO2 a cause of temperature rise, or an effect?" The permafrost wouldn't be melting without the CO2 put it in air by burning fossil fuels. Your article is mainly about methane, that's not CO2.

I don't think this is "mainly" about methane, in that it refers to methane comprising 1% later in the article. Even if you assume 0% methane:

Over hundreds of millennia, Arctic permafrost soils have accumulated vast stores of organic carbon - an estimated 1,400 to 1,850 petagrams of it (a petagram is 2.2 trillion pounds, or 1 billion metric tons). That's about half of all the estimated organic carbon stored in Earth's soils. In comparison, about 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted from all fossil-fuel combustion and human activities since 1850. Most of this carbon is located in thaw-vulnerable topsoils within 10 feet (3 meters) of the surface.

And where is the evidence that permafrost melting is due to man-made CO2? There is none. It's all conjecture.

There was obviously plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere "hundreds of millenia" ago, and that all ended up being frozen.

So what is mankind doing then, pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere? Global warming? Or bringing on another ice age? Or is it possibly the mechanics of global temperature are possibly affected by other factors outside man's control?

The science is spectacularly flawed and unbelievably biased.

It's like listening to Jesus Wheezers trying to convince you there's a God.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The science is spectacularly flawed and unbelievably biased.

Then it wouldn't be science.

But it is...

There was actually only half of the CO2 in the atmosphere 'hundreds of millenia' ago. It has never exceeded 280 ppm for all that time. It's been measured, from Antartic ice cores. So the Carbon has been building up in Siberia for ontold millenia of natural climate change, during which the permafrost remained frozen, otherwise the ice cores would tell us. Now we've been filling the atmosphere with CO2 big time for a little over a century, and the permafrost starts melting. What a coincidence.

and a lucky coincidence if it is ; who wants to live on a frozen planet?
brrrrrrr,
not me ,
turn the heating up !
If co2 is the bearer of such gifts , lets nudge it along !!!

We don't live on a frozen planet, so this question was purely academic. In an absurd way. If you feel cold at the 54th parallel, that's the Southern shore of the Baltic Sea with dozends of millions of tourists during the summer, I'm sorry. It's in the belt of the most fertile land around the globe, and most stable weather patterns. Few storms, droughts, unusual deluges. So far.

A video that shows a controversial solution to environmental and other problems.


"It is Californians God-given right to water their lawns."
"There's no way to argue with that... except with explosives"

Originally Posted by Balance

God-given right

is there such a thing ?

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by Balance

God-given right

is there such a thing ?

That's one of the biggest problems of the world today. The documentary suggests violence or at least destructive action is an option in this world being destroyed by selfish people who won't face reality or think for the sake of the planet's life. Something like that anyways. It's similar in philosophy to the ELF stuff from the 90s but the ELF were very local in terms of what their goals were.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The science is spectacularly flawed and unbelievably biased. It's like listening to Jesus Wheezers trying to convince you there's a God.

The science is no more flawed or biased than the science that says smoking causes cancer or that HIV causes AIDS.

All three are supported by a wealth of evidence and the mechanisms behind the effects are well understood. The only people who are having problems accepting the science are those who are in denial because they don't want to have to face up to the reality that they have an incurable disease which might kill them, their smoking probably will and those who don't want to face the sacrifices necessary of avoid the greif of global warming.

And just to drive it home, harry you say we are bible bashing with our gloabl warming.... well thats exactly what the aids dealists say about those of us daft enough to belive HIV exists, case in point

Originally Posted by johnwayne

Horse hockey! The Church of AIDS has, however, failed to answer any of, for example, Duesberg's The HIV-AIDS hypothesis*: 17 predictions versus the facts.

look at those saying the is controversy in climate change science and you will find the same lobbyst and pr groups who carried out the smoke and mirror campaings that tried to rubbish lung cancer research. Whenever climate denailists have actually done research, they have got the same answers as the rest of climate science.

Originally Posted by hazz

climate denailists

We said all along the climate changes , remember ?
it was you lot said it's global warming.

Originally Posted by hazz

The only people who are having problems accepting the science

err it's not ''the science '' it's one theory .

Originally Posted by hazz

the sacrifices necessary of avoid the greif of global warming.

What grief ?
Global warming is to be welcomed , a warm earth is better than a frozen planet.
And the Earth and mankind will benefit greatly with less polutting people .
If a warmed up planet can stop the 3rd world countries ,breeding to 10 billion , good !

Originally Posted by hazz

smoking... cancer ...HIV... AIDS.

''Red herring '' debating , not recomended .

Originally Posted by hazz

look at those saying the is controversy in climate change science and you will find the same lobbyst and pr groups who carried out the smoke and mirror campaings that tried to rubbish lung cancer research.

It's ironic that the people that complain about those rubbishing the man-made Global Warming theory are extremely quick to rubbish the science that suggests otherwise:

CO2 and temperature change

Do you guys actually read the rebuttal links that others have posted up?

Cherry picking one part of the science does not work.

However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.
Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
.........................


That CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was actually predicted in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen):

"Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing"

The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag (thanks to John Mashey for the tip).

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?