Anti-Green Philosophy

[lynnvinc]

all i have said in this thread is crocodiles and palm trees in alaska inside the arctic circle.

i keep saying that for a reason.

crocodiles and palm trees need specific temperatures to survive. crocodiles cannot survive below 30 degrees C and palm trees only grow in tropical or semi-tropical climates.

so crocodiles and palm trees are your absolute temperature record of those periods. they are the record of the global climate. the climate on a global scale had to be warm and stable. a cold spell in the arctic circle for even a few weeks would kill the crocodiles and palm trees.

there is no need to wonder what life would be like on earth if it were 6, 8, or 10 degrees warmer. you just look at the fossil record and there you will see what life was like in those temperatures. there is no speculation, no margin of error, no guesses. you can simply look at the animal and plant assemblages and you will know straight away what life was like, exactly.

the link you are asking for is the link i keep giving you to read, by the two geologists. here it is again, read it to find the temperatures in alabama when crocodiles and palm trees grew in the arctic circle.

syr.edu/news/articles/2011/co2-study-07-11.html

Thanks for the link again – as mentioned I don’t always have time to read the links (I do have a demanding job), but I’ve now read it, and this is what I get out of it:

1. 
   *]50 mya during the early Eocene the CO2 concentrations were higher than today (acc to Wikipedia, some 700-900 ppm, compared to 390 ppm today)
   *]The arctic was much hotter than today, but not quite as hot as previous studies indicated, and hosted crocs and palms.
   *]The coastal water in the Gulf of Mexico was about 27C, about 3C (5F) warmer than today.
   *]Sea rise swamped S. Alabama.
   *]Change in temps across seasons was less then than today.
   
   None of this is earth-shattering news. I’ve known about the crocs and palms in the arctic for decades, I just had not read that the Alabama climate was a lot colder during the early Eocene. And come to find out their study did NOT indicate Alabama was cooler than today, only that the arctic as well as the Gulf coast were not as warm as earlier studies indicated.
   
   Scientists have also known for a long time that there is an “arctic amplification” and that the arctic would warm more than the lower latitudes.
   
   Scientists have also known (and it is actually happening) that there would be more warming in winter than in summer (so less temp change across seasons).
   
   The only thing new in this study is that, acc to their results, there was not as much warming as indicated by previous studies of the early Eocene. However, one study does not science make, and it will have to stand the test of time and further studies.
   
   And as mentioned, the situation today is quite different from the Eocene: there is more solar irradiance now, and the rapidity at which we are causing the warming is much faster than then or ever before. And there are over 7 billion people who need food and potable water to survive, and these are in dire jeopardy, if we continue on our path.
   
   This study you cite has very little bearing on the harms to humans that are to come from AGW in the future, esp if we fail to mitigate. Perhaps the study (if it pans out) might mean there will be a tad less harms. And that would be good. However, it would be even better if we valiantly strove to reduce our GHG emissions so as to prevent the enormous amount of harms that would follow, even if this study pans out, rather than taking comfort that our enormous harms we cause would be just a tad less.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

from that report:

“The SU and Yale research team found that average Eocene water temperature along the subtropical U.S. Gulf Coast hovered around 27 degrees centigrade (80 degrees Fahrenheit), slightly cooler than earlier studies predicted. Modern temperatures in the study area average 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, the scientists discovered that, during the Eocene, temperatures in the study area did not change more than 3 to 5 degrees centigrade across seasons,** whereas today, the area’s seasonal temperatures fluctuate by 12 degrees centigrade. **”

alabama today has an average summer temperature of 32 degrees C. averaging out alabama annual temperature for today does not tell you how hot it actually gets there. the eocene alabama’s temperatures varied only by 3-5 degrees. alabama varies today by 12 degrees.

on the whole alabama during the eocene, ( the hottest period of earths history in the last 65 million years), was cooler than alabama today. it gets hotter in alabama today even though you say we have only a half or one third of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was during the eocene.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

**Terrestrial Life during the Eocene
**During the warmest part of the early Eocene, palm trees grew as far north as Alaska and Spitsbergen Island in the North Atlantic. Crocodilians lived above the Arctic Circle, and forests of dawn redwoods grew at 80° N latitude. As climate cooled and became more seasonal during the middle and late Eocene, forests gave way to dry woodlands, perhaps with open patches of grasses and herbs.

paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/eocene2.html

**Flora in North America during the eocene
**
At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.
Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene have also been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as northern North America and Europe.
Palm trees were growing as far north as Alaska and northern Europe during the early Eocene, although they became less abundant as the climate cooled. Dawn redwoods were far more extensive as well.
Cooling began mid-period, and by the end of the Eocene continental interiors had begun to dry out, with forests thinning out considerably in some areas. The newly-evolved grasses were still confined to river banks and lake shores, and had not yet expanded into plains and savannas.
The cooling also brought seasonal changes. Deciduous trees, better able to cope with large temperature changes, began to overtake evergreen tropical species. By the end of the period, deciduous forests covered large parts of the northern continents, including North America, Eurasia and the Arctic, and rainforests held on only in equatorial South America, Africa, India and Australia.
Antarctica, which began the Eocene fringed with a warm temperate to sub-tropical rainforest, became much colder as the period progressed; the heat-loving tropical flora was wiped out, and by the beginning of the Oligocene, the continent hosted deciduous forests and vast stretches of tundra.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora

i mean even wikipedia knows what happens when you raise global temperatures by 12 degrees C.
you get “high temperatures and warm oceans creating a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole.”

and you are worrying about a 6 degree rise in temperatures, which is highly unlikely and highly desirable. ‘forests from pole to pole’ and ‘a moist, balmy environment’ with ‘subtropical and even tropical trees and plants’ is exactly what we need to feed your ever increasing population on the planet.

 

[lynnvinc]

from that report:

"The SU and Yale research team found that average Eocene water temperature along the subtropical U.S. Gulf Coast hovered around 27 degrees centigrade (80 degrees Fahrenheit), slightly cooler than earlier studies predicted. Modern temperatures in the study area average 75 degrees Fahrenheit.

Some housewife wisdom helps here – a watched pot never boils…esp if it is a huge pot.

When you consider how much water there is in the Gulf, then 5F warmer (about 3C warmer) is a huge difference. Warmer waters lead to anoxia (lack of oxygen), which is also being caused by synthetic fertilizer run off coming down the Mississippi, causing eutrophication, which not only creates dead zones, killing off fish and sealife, but also leads to certain bacteria turning methane into hydrogen sulfide, a deadly gas – killing off more life. And then there is the problem of hurricanes – which require warmer waters to form, and the more warmth the more potential intensity of the storms.

Just what we people and crocs need

Additionally, the scientists discovered that, during the Eocene, temperatures in the study area did not change more than 3 to 5 degrees centigrade across seasons,** whereas today, the area’s seasonal temperatures fluctuate by 12 degrees centigrade. **"

alabama today has an average summer temperature of 32 degrees C. averaging out alabama annual temperature for today does not tell you how hot it actually gets there. the eocene alabama’s temperatures varied only by 3-5 degrees. alabama varies today by 12 degrees.

Maybe that’s because of the lag time and we haven’t caught up to our GHG emissions, which could take several centuries. The great warming of the PETM, as mentioned, took many 1000s of years vs. the couple of hundred years ours is taking. Nevertheless it doesn’t happen overnight.

on the whole alabama during the eocene, ( the hottest period of earths history in the last 65 million years), was cooler than alabama today. it gets hotter in alabama today even though you say we have only a half or one third of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was during the eocene.

That’s not what I read.

RE the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, as mentioned the warming we have caused is melting permafrost and ocean hydrates (and due to that arctic amplification, that is happeing pretty fast in geological time), so there will be many more gigatons being added to the atmosphere over the next few centuries. Methane is 25 times more powerful GHG than CO2, but only stays in the atmosphere about 10 years. However, if enough is released fast enough, that could compound and create a huge warming. Also, methane degrades to CO2 and other substances, and much of that CO2 will be staying in the atmosphere 100s, 1000s, even up to 100,000 years, and that is the more dangerous issue.

Our situation is poised to create much more GHGs in the atmosphere than during the PETM – our arctic methane shotgun is more fully loaded than during the PETM.

We are playing with matches in a dynamite factory.

I say let’s take the road of precaution, do whatever we can to reduce our GHG emissions that save us money or doesn’t cost (which can get us down to a 75% reduction), then we can see whether or not we may have to sacrifice for the sake of the life of the world. At the very least do those money-saving things that also reduce other environmental harms and are beneficial in other ways as well. I pray for prudence and goodness.

 

[lynnvinc]

**Terrestrial Life during the Eocene
**During the warmest part of the early Eocene, palm trees grew as far north as Alaska and Spitsbergen Island in the North Atlantic. Crocodilians lived above the Arctic Circle, and forests of dawn redwoods grew at 80° N latitude. As climate cooled and became more seasonal during the middle and late Eocene, forests gave way to dry woodlands, perhaps with open patches of grasses and herbs.

paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/eocene2.html

**Flora in North America during the eocene
**
At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.
Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene have also been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as northern North America and Europe.
Palm trees were growing as far north as Alaska and northern Europe during the early Eocene, although they became less abundant as the climate cooled. Dawn redwoods were far more extensive as well.
Cooling began mid-period, and by the end of the Eocene continental interiors had begun to dry out, with forests thinning out considerably in some areas. The newly-evolved grasses were still confined to river banks and lake shores, and had not yet expanded into plains and savannas.
The cooling also brought seasonal changes. Deciduous trees, better able to cope with large temperature changes, began to overtake evergreen tropical species. By the end of the period, deciduous forests covered large parts of the northern continents, including North America, Eurasia and the Arctic, and rainforests held on only in equatorial South America, Africa, India and Australia.
Antarctica, which began the Eocene fringed with a warm temperate to sub-tropical rainforest, became much colder as the period progressed; the heat-loving tropical flora was wiped out, and by the beginning of the Oligocene, the continent hosted deciduous forests and vast stretches of tundra.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora

i mean even wikipedia knows what happens when you raise global temperatures by 12 degrees C.
you get “high temperatures and warm oceans creating a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole.”

and you are worrying about a 6 degree rise in temperatures, which is highly unlikely and highly desirable. ‘forests from pole to pole’ and ‘a moist, balmy environment’ with ‘subtropical and even tropical trees and plants’ is exactly what we need to feed your ever increasing population on the planet.

Agree, our methane shotgun is extremely loaded this time – much more so than during the PETM, with all the life having turned to methane trapped in permafrost and ocean hydrates.

We’re playing with matches in a dynamite factory.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Some housewife wisdom helps here – a watched pot never boils…esp if it is a huge pot.

When you consider how much water there is in the Gulf, then 5F warmer (about 3C warmer) is a huge difference. Warmer waters lead to anoxia (lack of oxygen), which is also being caused by synthetic fertilizer run off coming down the Mississippi, causing eutrophication, which not only creates dead zones, killing off fish and sealife, but also leads to certain bacteria turning methane into hydrogen sulfide, a deadly gas – killing off more life. And then there is the problem of hurricanes – which require warmer waters to form, and the more warmth the more potential intensity of the storms.

Just what we people and crocs need

Maybe that’s because of the lag time and we haven’t caught up to our GHG emissions, which could take several centuries. The great warming of the PETM, as mentioned, took many 1000s of years vs. the couple of hundred years ours is taking. Nevertheless it doesn’t happen overnight.

That’s not what I read.

RE the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, as mentioned the warming we have caused is melting permafrost and ocean hydrates (and due to that arctic amplification, that is happeing pretty fast in geological time), so there will be many more gigatons being added to the atmosphere over the next few centuries. Methane is 25 times more powerful GHG than CO2, but only stays in the atmosphere about 10 years. However, if enough is released fast enough, that could compound and create a huge warming. Also, methane degrades to CO2 and other substances, and much of that CO2 will be staying in the atmosphere 100s, 1000s, even up to 100,000 years, and that is the more dangerous issue.

Our situation is poised to create much more GHGs in the atmosphere than during the PETM – our arctic methane shotgun is more fully loaded than during the PETM.

We are playing with matches in a dynamite factory.

I say let’s take the road of precaution, do whatever we can to reduce our GHG emissions that save us money or doesn’t cost (which can get us down to a 75% reduction), then we can see whether or not we may have to sacrifice for the sake of the life of the world. At the very least do those money-saving things that also reduce other environmental harms and are beneficial in other ways as well. I pray for prudence and goodness.

i couldn’t care less about methane. your scare tactics count for naught. have you forgotten Paddy’s antidote for global scaring so easily. look to the past, look to the past.

there was just as much methane under the ice 10,000 years ago as there is today. and 8000 years ago the natural heating cycle of the earth melted the ice-cap and released whatever was hiding under it. as a consequence the sahara desert 8,000 years ago became a green and pleasant land with tropical rain forest on its southern extent. all of the desert being covered in rich grasslands and trees and rivers and lakes.

the sahara desert became a wonderful place to live in and that was just the result of a 1 degree rise in temperature. if there was a 12 degree rise in temperature we would see wonderful tropical rain forests covering the sahara desert.

cooling is actually the enemy here. the sahara grasslands and forest cooled by 1 degree and it became a desert again and all the people who had migrated to it 8,000 years ago returned to the nile river and its delta and became the egyptians and one was chosen to become something called a pharaoh to try to force law and order on a crowded landscape.

their ancestors had been free to farm and herd right across a verdant sahara desert but now because of a measly 1 degree fall in global temperatures the people were forced to herd together on the crowded banks of the nile river. and what did this global cooling lead to? it caused mayhem, a loss of homeland, a crowded recouping and the establishment of a pharaoh to keep law and order and we know what happened next. the poor old hebrews were taken prisoner and made slaves by pharaoh. if only the globe had not cooled by that 1 degree then none of that would have happened. everyone would have had enough fertile land to stretch out in.

your diabolical methane shotgun misfired on all 5 hot interglacial periods of earth history over the past 600,000 years. in our interglacial period we have seen viking farming greenland, grape vines growing in england and rich grasslands and tropical forests spreading to cover the sahara desert. but the cursed global cooling brought all of that to an end.
no longer do viking farm greenland, no longer do grapevines grow in england and no longer is there rich grasslands, rivers, lakes and forests on the sahara desert.

 

[lynnvinc]

**Terrestrial Life during the Eocene
**During the warmest part of the early Eocene, palm trees grew as far north as Alaska and Spitsbergen Island in the North Atlantic. Crocodilians lived above the Arctic Circle, and forests of dawn redwoods grew at 80° N latitude. As climate cooled and became more seasonal during the middle and late Eocene, forests gave way to dry woodlands, perhaps with open patches of grasses and herbs…

At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.
Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene have also been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as northern North America and Europe.
Palm trees were growing as far north as Alaska and northern Europe during the early Eocene, although they became less abundant as the climate cooled. Dawn redwoods were far more extensive as well…

i mean even wikipedia knows what happens when you raise global temperatures by 12 degrees C.
you get “high temperatures and warm oceans creating a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole.”

and you are worrying about a 6 degree rise in temperatures, which is highly unlikely and highly desirable. ‘forests from pole to pole’ and ‘a moist, balmy environment’ with ‘subtropical and even tropical trees and plants’ is exactly what we need to feed your ever increasing population on the planet.

Look, you’re talking about the Eocene, a period that spanned 22 millions years. That would give some species a chance to change and adapt, while others became extinct.

Just look instead at the very short (in geol terms) Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that got up to 6C warmer, during which a huge number of species became extinct. But even then that spanned 20,000 years. That did pave the way for very small mammals, and eventually us, so I suppose there could be some bands of tiny humans evolving that will be better adapted to our brave new world, unless we push the system into runaway warming & end of all life on earth – which is a possibility given the much greater solar irradiance now and the rapidity climate change in our era than during the PETM.

There are so many differences today it isn’t funny. We could be causing (if we insist on following our profligate prodigal path) the same level of warming within 200 years – that’s 100 times more rapid than the PETM and 10,000 times more rapid than the Eocene. Species won’t have any time to adapt, esp plants that can’t get up and move around. And even animals – their pathways have been cut off; we have fragmented their habitats. Birds might fair a bit better – I understand they are moving north and pushing arctic species to extinction.

As for agriculture, that will perhaps decreasing by 30, even 70% by the time it gets 6C warmer, and as for Ellesmere Island, I know someone who lives there, & he tells me the soil is extremely poor and will not support much agriculture. Perhaps because biota doesn’t decompose adequately and the soil has not built up as in mid-latitudes. Now our rapid warming will not give the 1000s of years for the soil to build up.

Not to mention that Canada will probably close its borders to the hordes of immigrants.

Another point is that global warming is not the only environmental harm we are causing. For instance, the forests of the world have been drastically shrinking, not expanding (as you suggest), due to clear-cutting – for timber, farming, mineral extraction, cattle ranching, etc. You can try to tell people to stop that. Good luck.

Harms like ocean acidification – which will kill off a huge portion of sealife, on which a large portion of humanity depends for protein.

See “Planetary Boundaries: A Safe Operating Space for Humanity”
stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries
http://www.wikiprogress.org/images//Planetary-boundaries-credit-Azote+copy.jpg

The droughts right now are terrible, but they are expected to become ever more intense in the lower and mid-latitudes, where most people live… which bodes ill for agriculture.

Add to that sea rise – our best soil is in the alluvial plains and deltas close to sea level, supporting billions of people.

We’re talking about a huge human toll and with possible runaway warming the end of all life.

I don’t think Pope Francis would agree with you that we should keep emitting GHGs at a high level, if not bec of the human toll from climate change, then bec of the other harmful concomitant local & regional pollution, that causes health harms, death, birth defects, and miscarriage.

 

[lynnvinc]

i couldn’t care less about methane. your scare tactics count for naught. have you forgotten Paddy’s antidote for global scaring so easily. look to the past, look to the past.

there was just as much methane under the ice 10,000 years ago as there is today. and 8000 years ago the natural heating cycle of the earth melted the ice-cap and released whatever was hiding under it. as a consequence the sahara desert 8,000 years ago became a green and pleasant land with tropical rain forest on its southern extent. all of the desert being covered in rich grasslands and trees and rivers and lakes.

the sahara desert became a wonderful place to live in and that was just the result of a 1 degree rise in temperature. if there was a 12 degree rise in temperature we would see wonderful tropical rain forests covering the sahara desert.

cooling is actually the enemy here. the sahara grasslands and forest cooled by 1 degree and it became a desert again and all the people who had migrated to it 8,000 years ago returned to the nile river and its delta and became the egyptians and one was chosen to become something called a pharaoh to try to force law and order on a crowded landscape.

their ancestors had been free to farm and herd right across a verdant sahara desert but now because of a measly 1 degree fall in global temperatures the people were forced to herd together on the crowded banks of the nile river. and what did this global cooling lead to? it caused mayhem, a loss of homeland, a crowded recouping and the establishment of a pharaoh to keep law and order and we know what happened next. the poor old hebrews were taken prisoner and made slaves by pharaoh. if only the globe had not cooled by that 1 degree then none of that would have happened. everyone would have had enough fertile land to stretch out in.

your diabolical methane shotgun misfired on all 5 hot interglacial periods of earth history over the past 600,000 years. in our interglacial period we have seen viking farming greenland, grape vines growing in england and rich grasslands and tropical forests spreading to cover the sahara desert. but the cursed global cooling brought all of that to an end.
no longer do viking farm greenland, no longer do grapevines grow in england and no longer is there rich grasslands, rivers, lakes and forests on the sahara desert.

That’s funny – you must have missed what the scientists have found…there’s more methane in the permafrost than they had previously figured. phys.org/news140441692.html

But there are other scientists on your side who point out it is the CO2 that CH4 degrades into that’s the bigger issue, not the CH4, since CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for up to 100,000 years. See annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206?journalCode=earth & realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/

So it’s back to the CO2 drawing board…

I’m not trying to scare anyone – heaven forbid a person freeze up with fear like a deer in the headlights.

Plus this is a very slow-moving catastrophe – we’ll probably be long gone before the worst hits. I know I will, and I’ve never ever been afraid of ACC.

Nevertheless for the sake of future generations, it might be good to turn off lights not in use and other things that save money or don’t cost.

And I wish also people would turn their concern to other environmental issues. There are plenty.

It’s funny that some denialists fallaciously accuse ACC acceptors was being solely focused on ACC…by way of putting them down, perhaps also to take attention away from the other environmental problems.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Keep it civil and charitable.

Otherwise thread will be closed and infractions issued.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Interestingly enough, I know someone that has been taking weather readings for the U.S. Government since 1930; he’s going to be 101 this year. Based on his measurements, taken every day for the past 80+ years, he believes that global warming is occurring.

Also notable is that he’s a retired farmer. The reason that is important is that farmers can detect subtle changes in the crops over decades due to changes in weather.

I thought we weren’t allowed by the MMGW people to rely on what we, ourselves, have experienced. But okay, if this guy can, so can I. I’m a rancher, not retired. I’m not 101, but if you add my father’s and grandfather’s ages to mine, I get past 101 handily. Both were quite serious in saying there are cycles which they have experienced (both included going back to the late 19th century, early 20th), and they recur fairly predictably. Neither they nor I could say I can perceive any climate change. Cycles, yes. Overall change, no.

And how does this guy explain the fact that the temperature has not increased in the last 10-15 years? Cycles too, perhaps, but he calls them “climate change”?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps because biota doesn’t decompose adequately and the soil has not built up as in mid-latitudes. Now our rapid warming will not give the 1000s of years for the soil to build up.

For instance, the forests of the world have been drastically shrinking, not expanding (as you suggest), due to clear-cutting – for timber, farming, mineral extraction, cattle ranching, etc. You can try to tell people to stop that. Good luck.

The droughts right now are terrible, but they are expected to become ever more intense in the lower and mid-latitudes, where most people live… which bodes ill for agriculture.

As you know, you and I don’t agree on much, but we agree on certain things.

I also think deforestation is bad…in many places but not all. Before Columbus, a great deal of the U.S. that is now forested was not, or was more lightly forested than now. The same is true in the Amazon.

One thing that has happened in the U.S., and undoubtedly elsewhere, is that agricultural practices have encouraged some trees that have overwhelmed native trees in certain regions. I’ll agree that deforestation in China is terrible. I’ll also agree that a lot of people in the world don’t pasture correctly. There are good ways to do it and bad ways. People are rapidly learning the good ways, though.

I will disagree, though, about the difficulty of restoring land. It’s not easy, but it’s certainly possible, and doesn’t take thousands of years. I have done it on land that was nothing but frangipan…essentially devoid of all organic material.

The 2011 drought was bad. The 2012 drought was worse. I don’t know what 2013 will bring. Right now, it’s more normal than either 2011 or 2012, but we’ll see. I just hope it isn’t one of those cyclical five-year droughts that occurred in the 1970s, the 1950s, the 1930s, and before. I’ll admit the one in the 1970s was not as long or as bad as either the 1950s or the 1930s cycle. Maybe this one will be just a two-year drought.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

That’s funny – you must have missed what the scientists have found…there’s more methane in the permafrost than they had previously figured. phys.org/news140441692.html

But there are other scientists on your side who point out it is the CO2 that CH4 degrades into that’s the bigger issue, not the CH4, since CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for up to 100,000 years. See annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206?journalCode=earth & realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/

So it’s back to the CO2 drawing board…

I’m not trying to scare anyone – heaven forbid a person freeze up with fear like a deer in the headlights.

Plus this is a very slow-moving catastrophe – we’ll probably be long gone before the worst hits. I know I will, and I’ve never ever been afraid of ACC.

Nevertheless for the sake of future generations, it might be good to turn off lights not in use and other things that save money or don’t cost.

And I wish also people would turn their concern to other environmental issues. There are plenty.

It’s funny that some denialists fallaciously accuse ACC acceptors was being solely focused on ACC…by way of putting them down, perhaps also to take attention away from the other environmental problems.

take a quick look at what happened during the last interglacial period when all of that stuff you are on about actually happened.

read;

**
Climate of the Past
An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union**

The last interglacial (Eemian) climate simulated by LOVECLIM and CCSM3

"The arctic is warmer than PI through the whole year, resulting from its much higher summer insolation and its remnant effect in the following fall-winter through the interactions between atmosphere, ocean and sea ice. In the tropical Pacific, the change in the SST annual cycle is suggested to be related to a minor shift towards an El Nino, slightly stronger for MIS-5 than for PI. Intensified African monsoon and vegetation feedback are responsible for the cooling during summer in North Africa and Arabian Peninsula. Over India precipitation maximum is found further west, while in Africa the precipitation maximum migrates further north. Trees and grassland expand north in Sahel/Sahara. A mix of forest and grassland occupies continents and expand deep in the high northern latitudes. Desert areas reduce significantly in Northern Hemisphere, but increase in North Australia. The simulated large-scale climate change during the last interglacial compares reasonably well with proxy data, giving credit to both models and reconstructions. "

sounds good to me, sounds very good.

read about life in the West Indies, way down south, during the last interglacial period.

faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/Publications/FLOOD%20DEPOSITS.pdf

all normal there, lots of life, giant sloths, crocodiles, frogs, birds, turtles, etc. no problems.

 

[lynnvinc]

As you know, you and I don’t agree on much, but we agree on certain things.

I also think deforestation is bad…in many places but not all. Before Columbus, a great deal of the U.S. that is now forested was not, or was more lightly forested than now. The same is true in the Amazon. …

Here’s something in your neck of the woods, Ridgerunner, that relates to many issues – the bitumen oil spill in Mayflower, AR. I only heard about it from the Env Awareness Club on my campus. The media aren’t really covering it, like they hardly covered the Tennessee coal ash spill of 2008 at all (which at the time was declared the worst env disaster in the U.S.). The club also said that Exxon is forbidding journalists to come in, so the photos are from the residents.

http://tcktcktck.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Tar-sands-spill-Arkansas-Facebook-350org2013.jpg

There are several issues here. Bitumen is heaver than oil and sinks instead of floats on water, so when it spills into a water body, it sinks and is nearly impossible to clean up – and there have been plenty of spills in the US already. Also it is more acidic, so it eats thru pipes. And it is extremely energy and resource intensive. I think it requires about one part energy to produce 2 parts energy. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be a boondoggle – with subsidies it could actually require the same or more energy than it produces, and people wouldn’t realize it; their economy would just keep getting worse and worse, and they’d blame it on the foreigners.

Then there is the issue of why Canada needs a pipeline thru the US, when it could just refine it there and sell it to the US. And I’ve heard it’s bec they want to ship it abroad from the Texas ports, probably to China. So the US lets them build their pipelines over sensitive ecological areas, like the Ogallala Aquifer, and the frequent spills lead to ecological harm for millennia – and no one can drink the water, including the cattle, so they have ship it in from elsewhere, so China can drive around in their ever less efficient cars.

Another issue is bec that source of energy is itself so energy intensive, there are tremendous more GHGs and other pollutants emitted into the atmosphere – more health problems, including miscarriages from both production and consumption of product.

I’m glad I’m doing my very tiny part. We drive our Chevy Volt nearly all on wind-generated electricity, and to our surprise have found out it too will be saving us $$ long-run, first paying for the difference between it and the car hubby wanted within 6.5 years, then going on to save and save. We did drive it to Houston last month to see our niece (and did mainly use gasoline); it only got about 35 mpg, but that’s because we got a very late start and drove at 73 mph during the night with the AC on much of the way.

In July we’re installing solar panels on our roof to off-set about 45% of our electricity use, even though we’ve been on 100% wind power these past 12 years – because it’s a wise investment that will save us $$$ in our upcoming retirement.

And all our free and cheap env measures also keep saving us $$ year after year.

Going green means saving green. If you seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, all things will be added unto you. Alleluia!

 

[lynnvinc]

take a quick look at what happened during the last interglacial period when all of that stuff you are on about actually happened.

read;
**
Climate of the Past An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union**

The last interglacial (Eemian) climate simulated by LOVECLIM and CCSM3

"The arctic is warmer than PI through the whole year, resulting from its much higher summer insolation and its remnant effect in the following fall-winter through the interactions between atmosphere, ocean and sea ice. In the tropical Pacific, the change in the SST annual cycle is suggested to be related to a minor shift towards an El Nino, slightly stronger for MIS-5 than for PI. Intensified African monsoon and vegetation feedback are responsible for the cooling during summer in North Africa and Arabian Peninsula. Over India precipitation maximum is found further west, while in Africa the precipitation maximum migrates further north. Trees and grassland expand north in Sahel/Sahara. A mix of forest and grassland occupies continents and expand deep in the high northern latitudes. Desert areas reduce significantly in Northern Hemisphere, but increase in North Australia. The simulated large-scale climate change during the last interglacial compares reasonably well with proxy data, giving credit to both models and reconstructions. "

sounds good to me, sounds very good.

read about life in the West Indies, way down south, during the last interglacial period.

faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/Publications/FLOOD%20DEPOSITS.pdf

all normal there, lots of life, giant sloths, crocodiles, frogs, birds, turtles, etc. no problems.

I’ll certainly grant you that Interglacials are very good – we’ve been in one for the past 12,000 years – the Holocene – which has allowed agriculture and civilization to come about. What I’m referring to is the great warming periods that go well beyond typical interglacials.

We are now in the Anthropocene, as some call it, in which we are using our beneficial Holocene interglacial as a launching pad into a much hotter and hellish world, tho some crocs who swim fast enough might make to the arctic ocean and survive, assuming they aren’t gassed out by hydrogen sulfide outgassing, if the arctic turns super-anoxic when it heats up in some centuries or millennia to come.

From the past we have the end-Permian great warming 251 mya (about 6C higher than today) when 95% of life on earth died out.

I think each great warming beyond mild interglacials has different outcomes depending on different circumstances at the time. However, each great warming of 6C above today’s average did entail big extinction events. Of course, some species did survive or we wouldn’t be here today.

See:
Mayhew, Peter J.; Gareth B. Jenkins, Timothy G. Benton (January 7, 2008). “A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record”. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275 (1630): 47–53. rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47.full.pdf+html

ABSTRACT: The past relationship between global temperature and levels of biological diversity is of increasing concern due to anthropogenic climate warming. However, no consistent link between these variables has yet been demonstrated. We analysed the fossil record for the last 520 Myr against estimates of low latitude sea surface temperature for the same period. We found that global biodiversity (the richness of families and genera) is related to temperature and has been relatively low during warm ‘greenhouse’ phases, while during the same phases extinction and origination rates of taxonomic lineages have been relatively high. These findings are consistent for terrestrial and marine environments and are robust to a number of alternative assumptions and potential biases. Our results provide the first clear evidence that global climate may explain substantial variation in the fossil record in a simple and consistent manner. Our findings may have implications for extinction and biodiversity change under future climate warming.

In our unique situation, we have 7 billion people to be concerned about, and even a loss of 1 billion or 1 million to climate-change related impacts would be a very terrible thing. I can’t stomach it. And luckily I’ve found plenty of ways to mitigate ACC without harming our pocketbook, even helping it – which I would not have done, if I had not been so motivated to reduce our harm to our brethren and others of God’s creation. We’d probably even be in debt rather than doing well right now.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I’ll certainly grant you that Interglacials are very good – we’ve been in one for the past 12,000 years – the Holocene – which has allowed agriculture and civilization to come about. What I’m referring to is the great warming periods that go well beyond typical interglacials.

We are now in the Anthropocene, as some call it, in which we are using our beneficial Holocene interglacial as a launching pad into a much hotter and hellish world, tho some crocs who swim fast enough might make to the arctic ocean and survive, assuming they aren’t gassed out by hydrogen sulfide outgassing, if the arctic turns super-anoxic when it heats up in some centuries or millennia to come.
**
From the past we have the end-Permian great warming 251 mya (about 6C higher than today) when 95% of life on earth died out.**

I think each great warming beyond mild interglacials has different outcomes depending on different circumstances at the time. However, each great warming of 6C above today’s average did entail big extinction events. Of course, some species did survive or we wouldn’t be here today.

See:
Mayhew, Peter J.; Gareth B. Jenkins, Timothy G. Benton (January 7, 2008). “A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record”. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275 (1630): 47–53. rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47.full.pdf+html

ABSTRACT: The past relationship between global temperature and levels of biological diversity is of increasing concern due to anthropogenic climate warming. However, no consistent link between these variables has yet been demonstrated. We analysed the fossil record for the last 520 Myr against estimates of low latitude sea surface temperature for the same period. We found that global biodiversity (the richness of families and genera) is related to temperature and has been relatively low during warm ‘greenhouse’ phases, while during the same phases extinction and origination rates of taxonomic lineages have been relatively high. These findings are consistent for terrestrial and marine environments and are robust to a number of alternative assumptions and potential biases. Our results provide the first clear evidence that global climate may explain substantial variation in the fossil record in a simple and consistent manner. Our findings may have implications for extinction and biodiversity change under future climate warming.

In our unique situation, we have 7 billion people to be concerned about, and even a loss of 1 billion or 1 million to climate-change related impacts would be a very terrible thing. I can’t stomach it. And luckily I’ve found plenty of ways to mitigate ACC without harming our pocketbook, even helping it – which I would not have done, if I had not been so motivated to reduce our harm to our brethren and others of God’s creation. We’d probably even be in debt rather than doing well right now.

the eocene, 50 million years ago, was 11 degrees C hotter than today - and resulted in wonderful forests from pole to pole etc., etc. no mass dying out or extinctions. holy mackerel.

and i believe the previous interglacials were hotter than this present one and did not cause global extinction.

check out the temperature graph…

http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/2.jpg

yup, they were hotter.

 

[lynnvinc]

the eocene, 50 million years ago, was 11 degrees C hotter than today - and resulted in wonderful forests from pole to pole etc., etc. no mass dying out or extinctions. holy mackerel.

and i believe the previous interglacials were hotter than this present one and did not cause global extinction.

check out the temperature graph…

http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/2.jpg

yup, they were hotter.

That graph doesn’t go back 50 million years, but even if the Eocene, which spanned some 22 mill yrs with a very gradual warming, was able to sustain abundant life in a 6-8C warmer climate, it doesn’t follow that a very sudden shock in our era of extreme warming within 200 years (50+ times faster) will have no negative impacts on life, esp on humans, who are dependent on agriculture.

see

.

So please don’t go out and burn all your money out on your front lawn in hopes of contributing to a warmer era you think will benefit life, at least not until you’ve read what the top scientists have said about this warming in our time, and projected future impacts. A good place to start is the IPCC ipcc.ch/

 

[Paddy_Walker]

That graph doesn’t go back 50 million years, but even if the Eocene, which spanned some 22 mill yrs with a very gradual warming, was able to sustain abundant life in a 6-8C warmer climate, it doesn’t follow that a very sudden shock in our era of extreme warming within 200 years (50+ times faster) will have no negative impacts on life, esp on humans, who are dependent on agriculture.

see

So please don’t go out and burn all your money out on your front lawn in hopes of contributing to a warmer era you think will benefit life, at least not until you’ve read what the top scientists have said about this warming in our time, and projected future impacts. A good place to start is the IPCC ipcc.ch/

the graph is for the interglacials, all four previous ones were hotter than our present one.

the scandinavians are complaining that trees and plants are spreading north and growing as we speak where they didn’t used to. it only takes 10 to 30 years to get a nice sized tree. other plants and shrubs will grow over the course of a year.

 

[lynnvinc]

the graph is for the interglacials, all four previous ones were hotter than our present one.

the scandinavians are complaining that trees and plants are spreading north and growing as we speak where they didn’t used to. it only takes 10 to 30 years to get a nice sized tree. other plants and shrubs will grow over the course of a year.

Righto.

Looks like some got up to 3C warmer, but again (if I’m reading the graph right), it took some 5,000 to 10,000 for it to get up that high, unlike, some 150 years for us to get up to 3C, which is projected as probable for around 2050 or within a few decades later, and very likely beyond 3C by 2100, if we continue on our current path.

Also the human (or prehuman) population 130,000 years ago during the last 3C interglacial was well less than a million. They were hunters and gatherers, omnivorous, and had various stone (and perhaps other) tools, so they wouldn’t have had too much problem seeking out and finding food. The climate change was so slow, over 1000s of years, and their life expectancy very short, so I’m sure they wouldn’t have noticed it at all.

Here is a conference you might be interested in “4 Degrees and Beyond” at Oxford in 2008, with audio presentations online: eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/

I think you are very interested in these things, and that’s good.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Righto.

Looks like some got up to 3C warmer, but again (if I’m reading the graph right), it took some 5,000 to 10,000 for it to get up that high, unlike, some 150 years for us to get up to 3C, which is projected as probable for around 2050 or within a few decades later, and very likely beyond 3C by 2100, if we continue on our current path.

Also the human (or prehuman) population 130,000 years ago during the last 3C interglacial was well less than a million. They were hunters and gatherers, omnivorous, and had various stone (and perhaps other) tools, so they wouldn’t have had too much problem seeking out and finding food. The climate change was so slow, over 1000s of years, and their life expectancy very short, so I’m sure they wouldn’t have noticed it at all.

Here is a conference you might be interested in “4 Degrees and Beyond” at Oxford in 2008, with audio presentations online: eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/

I think you are very interested in these things, and that’s good.

you underestimate plants. they don’t hang around for 2 thousand years waiting for exactly the right temperature. they grow with the changes. thats how your garden looks like a desiccated skeleton during winter but just a few months later and its too crowded to walk around in.
if arctic temperatures change by 0.25 or 0.75 degrees a year or a decade the plants trees and crops will be growing and following impatiently the retreating edge of the ice.

you said a change of 6 degrees in 250 years or something. thats no problem to a tree which is ready to be harvested after 30 years. there would be wonderful forests after 250 years. not to mention million and millions of square miles of new land to support everyone.

globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/130313/canadas-north-greening-world-gets-warmer

i really have to laugh at wikipedias entry for norway;

“Both terrestrial and aquatic species are expected to shift northwards, and this is already observed for some species: migratory birds arriving earlier, trees coming into leaf earlier, Mackerel becoming common in summer off the coast of Troms, the growing red deer population is spreading northwards and eastwards and 2008 was the first hunting season which saw more red deer (35,700) than moose shot.[32] The total number of species in Norway are expected to rise due to new species arriving.[33] Norwegians are statistically among the world’s most worried when it comes to global warming and its effects,[34] even if Norway is among the countries expected to be least negatively affected by global warming, with some possible gains.”

 

[lynnvinc]

you underestimate plants. they don’t hang around for 2 thousand years waiting for exactly the right temperature. they grow with the changes. thats how your garden looks like a desiccated skeleton during winter but just a few months later and its too crowded to walk around in.
if arctic temperatures change by 0.25 or 0.75 degrees a year or a decade the plants trees and crops will be growing and following impatiently the retreating edge of the ice.

you said a change of 6 degrees in 250 years or something. thats no problem to a tree which is ready to be harvested after 30 years. there would be wonderful forests after 250 years. not to mention million and millions of square miles of new land to support everyone.

globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/130313/canadas-north-greening-world-gets-warmer

i really have to laugh at wikipedias entry for norway;

“Both terrestrial and aquatic species are expected to shift northwards, and this is already observed for some species: migratory birds arriving earlier, trees coming into leaf earlier, Mackerel becoming common in summer off the coast of Troms, the growing red deer population is spreading northwards and eastwards and 2008 was the first hunting season which saw more red deer (35,700) than moose shot.[32] The total number of species in Norway are expected to rise due to new species arriving.[33] Norwegians are statistically among the world’s most worried when it comes to global warming and its effects,[34] even if Norway is among the countries expected to be least negatively affected by global warming, with some possible gains.”

Go ahead emit as much as your hearts content. I don’t have children, so it’s no skin off my personal nose.

However, I trust what the scientists say over what bloggers have to say about impacts from THIS particular CC episode… You can trust whomever you wish.

I give up. You win.