• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction Caused by Cold?

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So . . . it was the cold all along, not the warming. Who knew?


Shock finding: P-T mass extinction was due to an ice age, and not to warming

From the UNIVERSITÉ DE GENÈVE The cold exterminated all of them Through age determinations that are using the radioactive decay of uranium, scientists have discovered that one of the greatest mass extinctions was due to an ice age and not to a warming of Earth temperature The Earth has known several mass extinctions over the course…
Continue reading →

The Earth has known several mass extinctions over the course of its history. One of the most important happened at the Permian-Triassic boundary 250 million years ago. Over 95% of marine species disappeared and, up until now, scientists have linked this extinction to a significant rise in Earth temperatures. But researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, working alongside the University of Zurich, discovered that this extinction took place during a short ice age which preceded the global climate warming. It’s the first time that the various stages of a mass extinction have been accurately understood and that scientists have been able to assess the major role played by volcanic explosions in these climate processes. This research, which can be read in Scientific Reports, completely calls into question the scientific theories regarding these phenomena, founded on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, and paves the way for a new vision of the Earth’s climate history.
Teams of researchers led by Professor Urs Schaltegger from the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the Faculty of Science of the UNIGE and by Hugo Bucher, from the University of Zürich, have been working on absolute dating for many years. They work on determining the age of minerals in volcanic ash, which establishes a precise and detailed chronology of the earth’s climate evolution. They became interested in the Permian-Triassic boundary, 250 million years ago, during which one of the greatest mass extinctions ever took place, responsible for the loss of 95% of marine species. How did this happen? for how long marine biodiversity stayed at very low levels ?. . . .

 
Jack Hays said:
So . . . it was the cold all along, not the warming. Who knew?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but more fundamentally it was the rapid climate change. Life tends to be less abundant in icy wastelands, but away from the polar caps biological diversity and abundance can adapt to and flourish under either colder or warmer conditions. Life has been doing just fine even under the glacial conditions which have dominated the last few million years of ice age. However adapting to new conditions takes time; to give some idea, the whole P-T extinction event occurred over a period of about 60 thousand years (+/- 48,000)! The likelihood that human activities are inducing a climate shift perhaps only half the magnitude, but far more rapidly over a mere two or three centuries, obviously raises significant concerns about how the biosphere will be affected.
 
Jack Hays said:
So . . . it was the cold all along, not the warming. Who knew?


Shock finding: P-T mass extinction was due to an ice age, and not to warming

From the UNIVERSITÉ DE GENÈVE The cold exterminated all of them Through age determinations that are using the radioactive decay of uranium, scientists have discovered that one of the greatest mass extinctions was due to an ice age and not to a warming of Earth temperature The Earth has known several mass extinctions over the course…
Continue reading →

The Earth has known several mass extinctions over the course of its history. One of the most important happened at the Permian-Triassic boundary 250 million years ago. Over 95% of marine species disappeared and, up until now, scientists have linked this extinction to a significant rise in Earth temperatures. But researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, working alongside the University of Zurich, discovered that this extinction took place during a short ice age which preceded the global climate warming. It’s the first time that the various stages of a mass extinction have been accurately understood and that scientists have been able to assess the major role played by volcanic explosions in these climate processes. This research, which can be read in Scientific Reports, completely calls into question the scientific theories regarding these phenomena, founded on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, and paves the way for a new vision of the Earth’s climate history.
Teams of researchers led by Professor Urs Schaltegger from the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the Faculty of Science of the UNIGE and by Hugo Bucher, from the University of Zürich, have been working on absolute dating for many years. They work on determining the age of minerals in volcanic ash, which establishes a precise and detailed chronology of the earth’s climate evolution. They became interested in the Permian-Triassic boundary, 250 million years ago, during which one of the greatest mass extinctions ever took place, responsible for the loss of 95% of marine species. How did this happen? for how long marine biodiversity stayed at very low levels ?. . . .

Click to expand...

An Ice Age and mass extinction brought on 250 million years ago by the addition of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere from volcanic activity. Very interesting stuff.
 
Mithrae said:
Perhaps, but more fundamentally it was the rapid climate change. Life tends to be less abundant in icy wastelands, but away from the polar caps biological diversity and abundance can adapt to and flourish under either colder or warmer conditions. Life has been doing just fine even under the glacial conditions which have dominated the last few million years of ice age. However adapting to new conditions takes time; to give some idea, the whole P-T extinction event occurred over a period of about 60 thousand years (+/- 48,000)! The likelihood that human activities are inducing a climate shift perhaps only half the magnitude, but far more rapidly over a mere two or three centuries, obviously raises significant concerns about how the biosphere will be affected.
Click to expand...

Ugh????

So the P-T extinction happened over 12,000 years minimum, and you think that extinction was due to cooling happening swiftly? But when we have warming you think the change will be bad due to the speed.

Or the extinction happened due to cooling and warming is good.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Ugh????

So the P-T extinction happened over 12,000 years minimum, and you think that extinction was due to cooling happening swiftly? But when we have warming you think the change will be bad due to the speed.

Or the extinction happened due to cooling and warming is good.
Click to expand...

Between 50 million and 100,000 years ago the planet cooled by about 16 degrees, to glacial maximums which have exceeded anything since the biggest phases of the Karoo Ice Age (~47 million years before the P-T extinction event).

Figure 6.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate
figure-6-1-l.png

In other words, temperatures have declined more to colder levels than anything around time of the P-T extinction event - yet there's been no mass extinction (until recently). 50 million years of changing conditions is enough time for life to adapt. A simplistic "cooling is bad" notion obviously doesn't hold up in the face of even the most cursory glance at the facts :roll:

Nor does the simple-minded "warming is good" notion: Rapid climatic warming has been implicated in at least two of the five major Phanerozoic extinction events (Permian-Triassic and Triassic-Jurassic) as well as the extinction of over 10% of marine genera at the onset of the Pliocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (with mixed biological responses, in the latter case). This recent study will not necessarily end up overturning previous theories about the P-T extinction. Even if it does however it still obviously continues to reinforce the fact that rapid climate change in either direction can be and usually is devastating to many of the organisms adapted to living in the previous conditions.

This study itself emphasizes not only the abruptness of the theorized cooling, but also the likelihood that (as with all mass extinctions, and as is occurring in the 21st century) multiple environmental stresses combined to overwhelm biological resilience:
Abrupt cooling likely resulted from the atmospheric injection of both volcanogenic and remobilized SO2 and H2S from early Paleozoic evaporites by the initial emplacement of dykes and sills of the Siberian Traps42,43. This scenario simultaneously accounts for acidification of ocean surface waters and for the global regression. The synergistic effects of shrunken marine habitats on continental shelves through a global eustatic regression, of fast temperature drop down, and of substantial acidification are all compatible with the new timing proposed here. Moreover, paleontological evidence (e.g., ref. 44), facies interpretations and sediment accumulation rates are all compatible with the volcanogenic sulfur aerosol-driven model for the PTBME.​
 
Mithrae said:
Between 50 million and 100,000 years ago the planet cooled by about 16 degrees, to glacial maximums which have exceeded anything since the biggest phases of the Karoo Ice Age (~47 million years before the P-T extinction event).

Figure 6.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate
figure-6-1-l.png

In other words, temperatures have declined more to colder levels than anything around time of the P-T extinction event - yet there's been no mass extinction (until recently). 50 million years of changing conditions is enough time for life to adapt. A simplistic "cooling is bad" notion obviously doesn't hold up in the face of even the most cursory glance at the facts :roll:

Nor does the simple-minded "warming is good" notion: Rapid climatic warming has been implicated in at least two of the five major Phanerozoic extinction events (Permian-Triassic and Triassic-Jurassic) as well as the extinction of over 10% of marine genera at the onset of the Pliocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (with mixed biological responses, in the latter case). This recent study will not necessarily end up overturning previous theories about the P-T extinction. Even if it does however it still obviously continues to reinforce the fact that rapid climate change in either direction can be and usually is devastating to many of the organisms adapted to living in the previous conditions.

This study itself emphasizes not only the abruptness of the theorized cooling, but also the likelihood that (as with all mass extinctions, and as is occurring in the 21st century) multiple environmental stresses combined to overwhelm biological resilience:
Abrupt cooling likely resulted from the atmospheric injection of both volcanogenic and remobilized SO2 and H2S from early Paleozoic evaporites by the initial emplacement of dykes and sills of the Siberian Traps42,43. This scenario simultaneously accounts for acidification of ocean surface waters and for the global regression. The synergistic effects of shrunken marine habitats on continental shelves through a global eustatic regression, of fast temperature drop down, and of substantial acidification are all compatible with the new timing proposed here. Moreover, paleontological evidence (e.g., ref. 44), facies interpretations and sediment accumulation rates are all compatible with the volcanogenic sulfur aerosol-driven model for the PTBME.​
Click to expand...

There is certainly no analogy here with what is happening today. Todays warming is hardly abrupt and is mirrored in the ice core record by many such phases over recent millenia. Its also going in the right direction i.e. warming rather than cooling so the predicted effect on the biosphere will be an increase in the overall biomass by 30 - 40% by the end of the century (should it continue) compounded by the fertilization of the extra CO2. Satellites are already seeing this occurring

https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

In short these are developments we should be welcoming not fearing. Spending Trillions economically shooting ourselves in the foot over politicised green guilt is not the way to go
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
There is certainly no analogy here with what is happening today. Todays warming is hardly abrupt and is mirrored in the ice core record by many such phases over recent millenia. Its also going in the right direction i.e. warming rather than cooling so the predicted effect on the biosphere will be an increase in the overall biomass by 30 - 40% by the end of the century (should it continue) compounded by the fertilization of the extra CO2. Satellites are already seeing this occurring

https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

In short these are developments we should be welcoming not fearing. Spending Trillions economically shooting ourselves in the foot over politicised green guilt is not the way to go
Click to expand...

You're really obsessed with guilt, aren't you? Possibly even more than with religion.

Ice core records by definition do not represent global temperature changes, so it is rather disingenuous to pretend that local records are an appropriate comparison for global warming. The most rapid sustained global climate changes in the past 800+ thousand years have been the major deglaciation periods, which occurred at about one-tenth of the rate of current warming (eg. one degrees over 1000 years in the fastest periods of the last deglaciation, compared with almost one degree in the past 100).

From Shakun et al 2012:
11kco2.jpg

Decadal variation over the past 1000+ years has sometimes more or less matched the rate of recent warming (ie, <0.6 degrees over a few decades), but has not been sustained over time; a few decades of warming tends to be followed by more or less similar cooling swings, and vice versa. The only period which has any high probability of matching the scale of 20th century climate change occurred around 1400; that was a cooling period (a Bond event which coincided with a significant decline of solar activity, the Sporer Minimum) which, again, lasted less than a century.

From the supplemental information to Mann & co 2008:
Ma08.jpg

Natural variability of the climate is a bit of a double-edged sword, to say the least: On the one hand, they show that life in general is pretty resilient and comes through rapid climate shifts one way or the other, despite losses in populations and biodiversity. But on the other hand, large fluctuations in the past imply higher levels of climate sensitivity to internal variation and external forcing.

The biggest and best hope that we can all have - both those who accept and those who profess to be 'sceptical' of mainstream climate science - is that the planet's climate sensitivity is low and our ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases will have effects very much on the low end of scientific estimates.

The evidence is not terribly reassuring in that regard, but since the past century does pretty clearly stand out over at least the past 1600 years (with perhaps one comparable, but not sustained period of cooling) it at least implies that sensitivity is unlikely to be on the high end of the IPCC range.
 
Mithrae said:
You're really obsessed with guilt, aren't you? Possibly even more than with religion.

Ice core records by definition do not represent global temperature changes, so it is rather disingenuous to pretend that local records are an appropriate comparison for global warming. The most rapid sustained global climate changes in the past 800+ thousand years have been the major deglaciation periods, which occurred at about one-tenth of the rate of current warming (eg. one degrees over 1000 years in the fastest periods of the last deglaciation, compared with almost one degree in the past 100).

From Shakun et al 2012:
View attachment 67215062

Decadal variation over the past 1000+ years has sometimes more or less matched the rate of recent warming (ie, <0.6 degrees over a few decades), but has not been sustained over time; a few decades of warming tends to be followed by more or less similar cooling swings, and vice versa. The only period which has any high probability of matching the scale of 20th century climate change occurred around 1400; that was a cooling period (a Bond event which coincided with a significant decline of solar activity, the Sporer Minimum) which, again, lasted less than a century.

From the supplemental information to Mann & co 2008:
View attachment 67215063

Natural variability of the climate is a bit of a double-edged sword, to say the least: On the one hand, they show that life in general is pretty resilient and comes through rapid climate shifts one way or the other, despite losses in populations and biodiversity. But on the other hand, large fluctuations in the past imply higher levels of climate sensitivity to internal variation and external forcing.

The biggest and best hope that we can all have - both those who accept and those who profess to be 'sceptical' of mainstream climate science - is that the planet's climate sensitivity is low and our ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases will have effects very much on the low end of scientific estimates.

The evidence is not terribly reassuring in that regard, but since the past century does pretty clearly stand out over at least the past 1600 years (with perhaps one comparable, but not sustained period of cooling) it at least implies that sensitivity is unlikely to be on the high end of the IPCC range.
Click to expand...

So in short we don't know. I suggest that until we do theres no point in taking any action whatsoever because what we do know is that the proposals to date will have serious negative economic impacts worldwide. Artificially increasing the costs of energy production negatively impacts everything
 
flogger said:
So in short we don't know. I suggest that until we do theres no point in taking any action whatsoever because what we do know is that the proposals to date will have serious negative economic impacts worldwide. Artificially increasing the costs of energy production negatively impacts everything
Click to expand...

As I've pointed out to you before, the estimated costs of reaching only 430-480ppm of CO2eq by 2100 would be that instead of an estimated 300-1000% growth in consumption over that period, there may be as little as 267-890% growth (IPCC AR5 WG2 Ch6.3.6.2 Global aggregate costs of mitigation in idealized implementation scenarios). Whether you consider that to be a serious negative economic impact is a fairly subjective call of course, but on face value it doesn't seem terribly alarming to me.

Furthermore, we do have considerable information on how climate change will affect the biosphere (from the AR5 WG2 SPM):
> In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Evidence of climate-change impacts is strongest and most comprehensive for natural systems.

> Climate change over the 21st century is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources significantly in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement).

> A large fraction of both terrestrial and freshwater species faces increased extinction risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors, such as habitat modification, over exploitation, pollution, and invasive species (high confidence).

> Within this century, magnitudes and rates of climate change associated with medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) pose high risk of abrupt and irreversible regional-scale change in the composition, structure, and function of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, including wetlands (medium confidence).

> Due to sea level rise projected throughout the 21st century and beyond, coastal systems and low-lying areas will increasingly experience adverse impacts such as submergence, coastal flooding, and coastal erosion (very high confidence).

> Due to projected climate change by the mid 21st century and beyond, global marine-species redistribution and marine-biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence).

> For medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5), ocean acidification poses substantial risks to marine ecosystems, especially polar ecosystems and coral reefs, associated with impacts on the physiology, behavior, and population dynamics of individual species from phytoplankton to animals (medium to high confidence).

> For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10%, and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. After 2050 the risk of more severe yield impacts increases and depends on the level of warming.​

Trying to translate the ecological impacts of climate change into dollars and cents is a fool's errand of course. More to the point, whatever uncertainty over the impacts still remain, they are a reason for caution not gung-ho over-confidence that we can keep doing whatever the hell we want. Humanity still depends ultimately on the natural world for our survival, and it is widely suggested that we are already in the middle of a sixth mass extinction, of a scale approaching that which wiped out the dinosaurs. Continuing further unmitigated climate change and ocean acidification on top of the myriad other stressors already in progress would be foolish in the extreme, even if the full extent of the biological damage is not certain - particularly since the alarmist rhetoric that mitigation strategies must be economically catastrophic simply don't hold up in the face of scrutiny.
 
Mithrae said:
As I've pointed out to you before, the estimated costs of reaching only 430-480ppm of CO2eq by 2100 would be that instead of an estimated 300-1000% growth in consumption over that period, there may be as little as 267-890% growth (IPCC AR5 WG2 Ch6.3.6.2 Global aggregate costs of mitigation in idealized implementation scenarios). Whether you consider that to be a serious negative economic impact is a fairly subjective call of course, but on face value it doesn't seem terribly alarming to me.

Furthermore, we do have considerable information on how climate change will affect the biosphere (from the AR5 WG2 SPM):
> In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Evidence of climate-change impacts is strongest and most comprehensive for natural systems.

> Climate change over the 21st century is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources significantly in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement).

> A large fraction of both terrestrial and freshwater species faces increased extinction risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors, such as habitat modification, over exploitation, pollution, and invasive species (high confidence).

> Within this century, magnitudes and rates of climate change associated with medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) pose high risk of abrupt and irreversible regional-scale change in the composition, structure, and function of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, including wetlands (medium confidence).

> Due to sea level rise projected throughout the 21st century and beyond, coastal systems and low-lying areas will increasingly experience adverse impacts such as submergence, coastal flooding, and coastal erosion (very high confidence).

> Due to projected climate change by the mid 21st century and beyond, global marine-species redistribution and marine-biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence).

> For medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5), ocean acidification poses substantial risks to marine ecosystems, especially polar ecosystems and coral reefs, associated with impacts on the physiology, behavior, and population dynamics of individual species from phytoplankton to animals (medium to high confidence).

> For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10%, and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. After 2050 the risk of more severe yield impacts increases and depends on the level of warming.​

Trying to translate the ecological impacts of climate change into dollars and cents is a fool's errand of course. More to the point, whatever uncertainty over the impacts still remain, they are a reason for caution not gung-ho over-confidence that we can keep doing whatever the hell we want. Humanity still depends ultimately on the natural world for our survival, and it is widely suggested that we are already in the middle of a sixth mass extinction, of a scale approaching that which wiped out the dinosaurs. Continuing further unmitigated climate change and ocean acidification on top of the myriad other stressors already in progress would be foolish in the extreme, even if the full extent of the biological damage is not certain - particularly since the alarmist rhetoric that mitigation strategies must be economically catastrophic simply don't hold up in the face of scrutiny.
Click to expand...

You seem to place enormous faith in the political entity that is the IPCC. An organisation set up by governments for governments and previously headed up by a railway engineer and now by an economist.

I'd rather place my faith in what is actually happening rather than the IPCCs self serving interpretation of it if its all the same and there is certainly no analogy with the Permian extinction today
 
flogger said:
You seem to place enormous faith in the political entity that is the IPCC. An organisation set up by governments for governments and previously headed up by a railway engineer and now by an economist.

I'd rather place my faith in what is actually happening rather than the IPCCs self serving interpretation of it if its all the same and there is certainly no analogy with the Permian extinction today
Click to expand...

Not only that, quoting RCP 4.5 to RCP 8.5 risks are laughable. The trends we have witnessed are below the lowest of the RCP scenarios.
 
flogger said:
You seem to place enormous faith in the political entity that is the IPCC. An organisation set up by governments for governments and previously headed up by a railway engineer and now by an economist.

I'd rather place my faith in what is actually happening rather than the IPCCs self serving interpretation of it if its all the same and there is certainly no analogy with the Permian extinction today
Click to expand...
Typical liberals, always attacking the source.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not only that, quoting RCP 4.5 to RCP 8.5 risks are laughable. The trends we have witnessed are below the lowest of the RCP scenarios.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true.

Also: it's possible for a model to be accurate and yet fail to predict actual outcomes. Something I've never seen a "skeptic" recognize.
 
Deuce said:
Not entirely true.

Also: it's possible for a model to be accurate and yet fail to predict actual outcomes. Something I've never seen a "skeptic" recognize.
Click to expand...

LOL...

In other words...

Models normally fail...
 
Deuce said:
Not entirely true.

Also: it's possible for a model to be accurate and yet fail to predict actual outcomes. Something I've never seen a "skeptic" recognize.
Click to expand...

And if you toss a coin often enough you can sometimes get heads to come up 5 times in a row ! :lol:
 
flogger said:
And if you toss a coin often enough you can sometimes get heads to come up 5 times in a row ! :lol:
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that climate models are random, or are you under the impression that climate is random?

I'll help you guys out:

Climate models simulate based on assumptions regarding certain variables for inputs. If the real world doesn't match those inputs, even an accurate model will fail to predict the real results. (and in fact, predicting real results with the wrong inputs would indicate an inaccurate model)

To give the extreme example as illustration: if a giant asteroid hits tomorrow and triggers an ice age, you guys would be chortling about those dumb climate scientists with their model that predicted warming instead of an ice age.
 
Deuce said:
Climate models simulate based on assumptions regarding certain variables for inputs. If the real world doesn't match those inputs, even an accurate model will fail to predict the real results. (and in fact, predicting real results with the wrong inputs would indicate an inaccurate model)
Click to expand...

So you finally concede that climate models are based on guesswork then ?
 
Every 5 minutes someone comes up with something new about this period or that period in history.

Whatever.

I assume this is an attempt to try and dissuade people from buying into Global Warming.

Again...whatever.

It makes sense to me that it is not good or cool to treat the planet like ****. So I don't.

Plus, there seems an absolute ****load of brain boxes who say global warming is true.

So, I believe it is to at least some extent.

Beyond that...whatever...as I will be dead long before it affects me much.

So I will just try and stay on karma's good side on this and not worry about it much.
 
Deuce said:
Not entirely true.

Also: it's possible for a model to be accurate and yet fail to predict actual outcomes. Something I've never seen a "skeptic" recognize.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. Wrong.
 
Deuce said:
Are you under the impression that climate models are random, or are you under the impression that climate is random?

I'll help you guys out:

Climate models simulate based on assumptions regarding certain variables for inputs. If the real world doesn't match those inputs, even an accurate model will fail to predict the real results. (and in fact, predicting real results with the wrong inputs would indicate an inaccurate model)

To give the extreme example as illustration: if a giant asteroid hits tomorrow and triggers an ice age, you guys would be chortling about those dumb climate scientists with their model that predicted warming instead of an ice age.
Click to expand...

No.

If however they predict a massive warming and nothing much happens then the models are rubbish.
 
DA60 said:
Every 5 minutes someone comes up with something new about this period or that period in history.

Whatever.

I assume this is an attempt to try and dissuade people from buying into Global Warming.

Again...whatever.

It makes sense to me that it is not good or cool to treat the planet like ****. So I don't.

Plus, there seems an absolute ****load of brain boxes who say global warming is true.

So, I believe it is to at least some extent.

Beyond that...whatever...as I will be dead long before it affects me much.

So I will just try and stay on karma's good side on this and not worry about it much.
Click to expand...

Oh that it was not important.

Today 40% of US grain is used for biofuel. This has raised the price of basic foods by 30% to 70%.

The world's poor are dying in their millions due to this. The rate of development of the third world is greatly reduced by the squeezing out of what little money they have. The Arab spring happened due to a spike in food prices. Syria happened when the next spike hit.

Well done the green movement.
 
flogger said:
So you finally concede that climate models are based on guesswork then ?
Click to expand...

:roll:

Man, I have to break it down even more I guess.

No, estimates are not the same thing as guesses. For example: CO2 is an obvious variable they are using. But it's not certain how much CO2 we spit into the atmosphere over time. Maybe we do business as usual. Maybe emissions accelerate. Maybe we cut back. And, for giggles, they run scenarios using a year 2000 flat emissions scenario. (which is impossible without time travel but it's done for a reference)

Now, this is the part where semi-informed "skeptics" point out "but actual emissions were higher than A1B (or whichever scenario it was) but temperatures were lower! hahaha models failed!" Which would be a valid statement... but only if CO2 were the only variable. Better-informed individuals are aware that CO2 isn't the only variable.

Can you think of another major climate variable that behaved differently than expected, that has spawned several threads on the potential impacts in the future? I'll give you a hint: look out your window. Depending on your location, you may see it! (I can't because the sky is grey :( )
 
Tim the plumber said:
Oh that it was not important.

Today 40% of US grain is used for biofuel. This has raised the price of basic foods by 30% to 70%.

The world's poor are dying in their millions due to this. The rate of development of the third world is greatly reduced by the squeezing out of what little money they have. The Arab spring happened due to a spike in food prices. Syria happened when the next spike hit.

Well done the green movement.
Click to expand...

I will always challenge this lie.

Tim thinks 20 million people per year die directly due to biofuel-related food price increases. It's impossible, because there aren't that many nutrition-related deaths per year, so even if you attributed every single one of them to biofuels you still come up short. He even tried to come up with some arbitrary, nonsensical math to justify his "estimate" after the fact... and made a math error! His own math showed the estimate to actually be, what, less than a million? (and that's accepting the completely made up numbers he started with)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom