Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Luther Blissett » Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:55 pm
by DrEvil » Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:47 pm
by backtoiam » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:10 pm
And for the nth time - where on Earth(?) do you find your sources? Principia Scientific is on the delusional end of the denier scale.
by Luther Blissett » Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:38 pm
backtoiam » Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:10 pm wrote:And for the nth time - where on Earth(?) do you find your sources? Principia Scientific is on the delusional end of the denier scale.
I just have a routine of going through news aggregators. If I see something that pertains to a thread here sometimes I share if i'm in the mood and sometimes i'm too lazy to do so. I verified that homeboy was in trouble so I shot the article in here for yall to chew on. " I won't chew on it with ya because climate change isn't something i'm passionate about. I will let you guys that are into this topic do that.
by backtoiam » Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:58 pm
by tapitsbo » Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:59 pm
by DrEvil » Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:12 pm
backtoiam » Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:58 pm wrote:I disagree. There are two sides to every story from one extreme to the other. Somewhere in the middle, round abouts anyway, something similar to truth can be found, whatever truth is. Accuracy. Thats the word i'm looking for. Accuracy.
If this dude published over a thousand papers with data he made up because he wanted that half million bux worse than accuracy then it needs to be noticed. We don't know where the data came from and probably never will. But it needs to be noticed. Just my opinion. Carry on....
by backtoiam » Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:45 pm
So far there's no evidence that he made up any data (other than in your imagination), and certainly not for over a thousand papers.
People will look into it now that they know he's unreliable, and if he can't account for his data the relevant papers will be retracted. The data doesn't just magically disappear once a paper is published.
Finally: It's not the message, I think we can all agree that Alongi is a disgrace, it's the lunatic sources that are known liars, fascists, racists or whatnot you keep posting that I have an issue with.
If all I had to go on was the articles and videos you've posted I would be convinced that you are a far-right reality-denying racist, which I'm sure is not your intention, which is why I keep banging on about checking your sources.
Example: "Rape is bad / Rape is awesome."
by DrEvil » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:44 pm
by backtoiam » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:59 pm
Dr. Evil wrote:
Every time you post one of your bullshit sources (and I don't care if they happen to be right that one time) you piss all over this board and drag it a little deeper into the mud, and it's all indexed by Google for eternity.
by Luther Blissett » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:21 pm
What we’re doing to the Earth has no parallel in 66 million years, scientists say
If you dig deep enough into the Earth’s climate change archives, you hear about the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. And then you get scared.
This is a time period, about 56 million years ago, when something mysterious happened — there are many ideas as to what — that suddenly caused concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to spike, far higher than they are right now. The planet proceeded to warm rapidly, at least in geologic terms, and major die-offs of some marine organisms followed due to strong acidification of the oceans.
The cause of the PETM has been widely debated. Some think it was an explosion of carbon from thawing Arctic permafrost. Some think there was a huge release of subsea methane that somehow made its way to the atmosphere — and that the series of events might have been kickstarted by major volcanic eruptions.
In any case, the result was a hothouse world from pole to pole, some 5 degrees Celsius warmer overall. But now, new research suggests, even the drama of the PETM falls short of our current period, in at least one key respect: We’re putting carbon into the atmosphere at an even faster rate than happened back then.
Such is the result of a new study in Nature Geoscience, led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and colleagues from the University of Bristol in the UK and the University of California-Riverside.
“If you look over the entire Cenozoic, the last 66 million years, the only event that we know of at the moment, that has a massive carbon release, and happens over a relatively short period of time, is the PETM,” says Zeebe. “We actually have to go back to relatively old periods, because in the more recent past, we don’t see anything comparable to what humans are currently doing.”
That’s why this time period is so crucial to study — as a possible window on our own.
There’s no doubt that a lot of carbon — about as much as contained the fossil fuel reserves that humans have either already burned, or could still burn, combined — made its way into the atmosphere during the PETM. The result was a major warming event that lasted over 100,000 years. But precisely how rapidly the emissions occurred is another matter.
“If anthropogenic emissions rates have no analogue in Earth’s recent history, then unforeseeable future responses of the climate system are possible,” the authors write.
To examine what happened in the PETM, the researchers used a deep ocean core of sediment from off the coast of New Jersey. The goal was to determine the ratios between different isotopes, or slightly different elemental forms, of carbon and oxygen, in the sediments during the PETM.
The relationship between the two lets researchers determine how atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as reflected in the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13, in turn influenced temperatures (which can be inferred based on oxygen isotopes in the ocean).
“In terms of these two systems, the first shows us when the carbon went into the system, and the second tells us when the climate responded,” says Zeebe.
It turns out that there is a lag time between massive pulses of carbon in the atmosphere and subsequent warming, because the oceans have a large thermal inertia. Therefore, a large lag would indicate a greater carbon release, whereas the lack of one actually means that carbon dioxide came out more slowly.
The geologic evidence from the new core did not show a lag, the new study reports. That means, the authors estimate, that while a gigantic volume of carbon entered the atmosphere during the PETM — between 2,000 and 4,500 billion tons — it played out over some 4,000 years. So only about 1 billion tons of carbon were emitted per year. In contrast, humans are now emitting about 10 billion tons annually — changing the planet much more rapidly.
“The anthropogenic release outpaces carbon release during the most extreme global warming event of the past 66 million years, by at least an order of magnitude,” writes Peter Stassen, an Earth and environmental scientist at KU Leuven, in Belgium, in an accompanying commentary on the new study.
The analogy between the PETM and the present, then, is less than perfect — and our own era may be worse in key ways. “The two main conclusions is that ocean acidification will be more severe, ecosystems may be hit harder because of the rate” of carbon release, says Zeebe.
And not only have we only begun to see the changes that will result from current warming, but there may be other changes that lack any ancient parallel, because of the current rate of change.
“Given that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented throughout the Cenozoic, we have effectively entered an era of a no-analogue state, which represents a fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections,” the study concludes.
by fruhmenschen » Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:38 pm
by Luther Blissett » Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:51 pm
These leaks are big enough to wipe out a large share of the gains from the Obama administration’s work on climate change—all those closed coal mines and fuel-efficient cars. In fact, it’s even possible that America’s contribution to global warming increased during the Obama years. The methane story is utterly at odds with what we’ve been telling ourselves, not to mention what we’ve been telling the rest of the planet.
The EPA’s old chemistry and 100-year time frame assigned methane a heating value of 28 to 36 times that of carbon dioxide; a more accurate figure, says Howarth, is between 86 and 105 times the potency of CO2 over the next decade or two.
There was one oddly reassuring number in the Harvard satellite data: The massive new surge of methane from the United States constituted somewhere between 30 and 60 percent of the global growth in methane emissions this past decade. In other words, the relatively small percentage of the planet’s surface known as the United States accounts for much (if not most) of the spike in atmospheric methane around the world. Another way of saying this is: We were the first to figure out how to frack. In this new century, we’re leading the world into the natural-gas age, just as we poured far more carbon into the 20th-century atmosphere than any other nation. So, thank God, now that we know there’s a problem, we could warn the rest of the planet before it goes down the same path.
Except we’ve been doing exactly the opposite. We’ve become the planet’s salesman for natural gas—and a key player in this scheme could become the next president of the United States. When Hillary Clinton took over the State Department, she set up a special arm, the Bureau of Energy Resources, after close consultation with oil and gas executives. This bureau, with 63 employees, was soon helping sponsor conferences around the world. And much more: Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that the secretary of state was essentially acting as a broker for the shale-gas industry, twisting the arms of world leaders to make sure US firms got to frack at will.
by stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:19 pm
Because here’s the unhappy fact about methane: Though it produces only half as much carbon as coal when you burn it, if you don’t—if it escapes into the air before it can be captured in a pipeline, or anywhere else along its route to a power plant or your stove—then it traps heat in the atmosphere much more efficiently than CO2. Howarth and Ingraffea began producing a series of papers claiming that if even a small percentage of the methane leaked—maybe as little as 3 percent—then fracked gas would do more climate damage than coal. And their preliminary data showed that leak rates could be at least that high: that somewhere between 3.6 and 7.9 percent of methane gas from shale-drilling operations actually escapes into the atmosphere.
by Nordic » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:43 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 162 guests