Civilization As We Know It Is Unsustainable., The wrecking of our life support system. Options

[Omega892R09]

Current species extinction rates are unprecedented in the fossil record.

Royal Society: “There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.”

Please take time to absorb all that is written there including many excellent comment.

and that is not all.

Heard of the North Pacific gyre and the plastic garbage patch?:

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Good Morning America

Message to lunk:

Avoiding the answering of my questions by locking a thread is not fair play as in:

Stephen Schneider thread

Insrtead you repeat stuff I have debunked backed with evidence and you provide a singular lack of support for your erroneous ideas as with this:

i have a little problem with the past predictions of oceans rising.
(since the '60's!)
They haven't.

The reason that you see lower tides in your local is because the land is rising as the Pacific plate subducts beneath, as I have repeatedly told you. But that is another well researched and sound scientifically known fact that you refuse to acknowledge.

Try explaining how the structure that is the European Alps formed by an expanding earth. Ask yourself why the top of the Matterhorn is a huge chunk of gneiss, albeit somewhat ground down by glaciers and then the carbon cycle working with rain, winds and gravity to further errode, that could only have come from the African continent.

Here are some clues, not that I have not supplied many more over time:

Waves in the bathtub Why sea level rise isn’t level at all

Scientists withdraw low-ball estimate of sea level rise — media are confused and anti-science crowd pounces

and as for:

If water evaporates quicker under lower atmospheric pressure,
then a rise in ocean levels would accelerate evaporation,
reducing that rise.

Is atmospheric pressure overall falling? Who is telling you that?

You should study this:

The sky IS falling

On the other hand, what is causing a rise in atmospheric moisture levels is rising temperature. The energy stored is put into an accelerated hydrological cycle as people in Pakistan have discovered. Tropical storms over parts of the US have also intensified whilst other parts continue to desicate:

Masters: “Strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest smashes all-time pressure records”

Study: Global warming is driving increased frequency of extreme wet or dry summer weather in southeast, so droughts and deluges are likely to get worse

Lunk, it would make a change if you tried to grasp these topics rather than evading and repeating unsupported nonsense dressed up as verse.

[André]

Civilization As We Know It Is Unsustainable

This would have been a great title for debate expanding our understanding of the situation we are in and hopefully begin to find solutions, but like everything else it seems it's all about our pet projects or perceptions of reality.

While I am not a believer in co2 global warming, even if it was true and you could convince everybody of the urgency to act, what would be the point when the agenda is the creation of co2 global trade market administered by the world bank which was given recently 100 billions to play with in the recent Cancun agreement with little oversight. Anybody here believe these greedy corrupt bankers give a shit about this planet sustainability.

The problems are much more profound and solutions cannot be found within a system that profits by creating problems, real or imaginary.

[Omega892R09]

While I am not a believer in co2 global warming,

It is not a question of belief but of understanding the evidence. Something you have obviously yet to do.

[André]

It is not a question of belief but of understanding the evidence. Something you have obviously yet to do.

I also believe that you are supporting an agenda that has little to do with sustainability, quite the contrary, anyway the evidence point in that direction...

[Omega892R09]

I also believe that you are supporting an agenda that has little to do with sustainability, quite the contrary, anyway the evidence point in that direction...

Sorry but you will have to do better than that.

The only agenda I am supporting is one that will ensure that we are not overwhelmed by environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by humans - this is proven BTW and I have provided ample evidence for that (and have plenty more to use if necessary), and pollution caused by the fossil fuel industry. Those, like you, who consider this a hoax have not provided one shred of viable evidence to support your position. Where is your evidence?

There are multiple lines of evidence that demonstrate the dangers of the out of control sourcing of fossil fuel. From mountain top removal for coal, to lax regulations of oil drilling and the dreadfully polluting tar sands projects and on to the toxic pollution of groundwater from fracking.

It seems the average US, and Canadian, and Australian citizen has been so hogwashed by the fossil fuel funded mainstream media, and this includes Alex 'I love Monckton and Delingpole' Jones that they think AGW is a hoax. Sad fools!

Delingpole I have already shown up in this thread and the noxious Monckton is soundly countered by Barry Bickmore here, READ IT:

Lord Monckton's Rap Sheet

Each and every one of the denier/delayer supporting rabble of has been scientists, would be climatologists such as McIntyre, media pundits and plain vanilla myopic politicians (mostly, but not exclusively a part of the GOP) has been soundly debunked or demonstrated as bearing false witness. Go figure!

Wake up sheeple, as lunk would have it.

[BarryWilliamsmb]

The only agenda I am supporting is one that will ensure that we are not overwhelmed by environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by humans - this is proven BTW and I have provided ample evidence for that

I searched for Tim Paterson's name on this forum and nothing came up.

His evidence regarding long term climate change was very persuasive to me and I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this Omega?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_vHTHnAa1s

Also interesting in this 2007 video (but OT, I realize) is the info running along the bottom. This was obviously a long time ago when the earth was green and:

at 2:08 - Gold is $661. Four years later = $1426
2:16 - Canadian dollar is $.91 Today = $1.03
2:22 - Oil $62.55. Today = $104.27

Um, just wondering... do aircraft wobble lots before they crash? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[Omega892R09]

I searched for Tim Paterson's name on this forum and nothing came up.

His evidence regarding long term climate change was very persuasive to me and I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this Omega?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_vHTHnAa1s

Yes Patterson has crossed my radar but as he has not contribute anything of note to the arguments I have not had cause to quote him or critique him.

However in that segment he picks a number of cherries and makes statements that have been debunked again and again. The video demonstrated at the start provides a time context.

Essentially yes we know that climate is always changing and has changed much in the past and is certain to continue into the future. It is with the rapidity of current climate change that we have to worry and this is proven to be due to human additions of gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every year which accumulates much like the compound interest on a loan. The balance of fossil fuel CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, differentiated by isotopic analysis, increases year on year and as various CO2 buffers become saturated is likely to accelerate.

How CO2 acts as a heat trapping gas I have explained on here in various threads again and again (take note elreb with your sly comment) but for reasons of space, not through any lack of knowledge on my part, I prefer to quote reliable sources such as Archer (see citation in reply to lunk up-thread) and for the reasons why Patterson POV is dubious see sources such as:

SkepticalScience - a learning resource

and download and read the PDF file The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

Note that these are only intended as a starting point, use the references in that document as jumping off points to other more detailed information.

That CO2 is increasing faster than at any point in the last few millenia is now well recognised. Also that rapid rises in CO2 is followed by temperature increases is also recognised. Sure some can argue that temperature drives CO2, well when rising temperatures cause a release of carbon locked in frozen ground suddenly, very rapidly increasing CO2 levels, through methane release and disassociation, then it can seem like the case that temperature leads CO2 but one has to be careful about assigning cause and effect labels.

Also, it is becoming increasingly recognised that the cryosphere has some tricks up its sleeve when it comes to rapid melting. Arctic sea ice melt aside, research in Greenland and Antarctica is producing some troubling finding which point to a more rapid melt than the millenium time scale event agreed for the IPCC FAR (see below for expansion). Many scientists had anticipate this and it was for this reason that many were unhappy with the FAR that it was understating the sea level rise potential rather than exaggerating it as commonly believed, thanks to the MM echo-sphere.

It has been found that in summer meltwater penetrates down through crevices and moulins with the increase in static water pressure at the junction with the rock below lifting the ice sheet up by as much as 0.6 meters accelerating the rate of movement.

WRT Antarctica, the depression of West Antarctica by the weight of the overlaying ice sheet could with a loss of ice sheet mass cause the ice to lift off as continental isostatic rebound is too slow to follow. As much of this ice sheet is below sea level the resultant basin could fill with warmer sea water and kick of a rapid melt and faster break up of the ice sheets.

As Jack Aubery was found of saying, 'there isn't a moment [more] to lose [in trying to nullify the increasing greenhouse effect]'. Consider that as yet the radiative ballance of the Earth has yet to reach equilibrium with the amount of extra GHGs we have added to this point. There is more warming in the pipeline even if we stopped pumping GHG sources tomorrow.

Patterson's notions are rather old hat and have been dealt with Round up and thanks, note that I have highlighted in red other notorious obfuscators of true science, visit Disinformation Database:

Leisureguy says: 28 Feb 2007 at 7:23 PMWe're having a brisk discussion on global warming at ShaveMyFace.com, and I am valiantly defending the reality of global warming and humankind's role in it, with some assists. But recently someone lobbed this quotation at me:

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Can you provide a pithy response? Is this guy just an outlier from a group judgment? Anyone want to join in the discussion?

Many thanks for whatever you can offer. Michael

[Response: Your answer is in this paper by Royer et al., also featured in the upcoming IPCC report. It doesn't look like PAtterson is right. -stefan]



Thomas Lee Elifritz says: 28 Feb 2007 at 8:29 PMHe's not a paleoclimatologist, he's a geologist, a rather obscure one at that.

The following climate experts signed the letter: R. Tim Patterson, PhD, Professor of Geology at Carleton University; Tim Ball, PhD, Retired – Professor of Climatology at University of Winnipeg; Anthony Lupo, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Science at University of Missouri – Columbia; David Legates, PhD, Associate Professor in Climatology at University of Delaware; Pat Michaels, PhD, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; George Taylor, M.S. Meteorology; Gary D. Sharp, PhD Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study; Roy W. Spencer, PhD Principal Research Scientists, The University of Alabama in Huntsville; Jon Reisman, Associate Professor of Economics and Public Policy; University of Maine at Machias/ Maine Public Policy Institute Scholar, Willie Soon, PhD, Science Director, Tech Central Station and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, Enviro- Science Editor, Tech Central Station.

You may now yawn.

For the Royer reference in the first comment quoted in the above I point you at the IPCC Fourth Assesment report The Physical Science Base, Chapter 6 contains most of the meat of specific interest.

Um, just wondering... do aircraft wobble lots before they crash? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

Wrong thread, but maybe as they approach the stall. Different aircraft different cap tallies.