|
|
Post by AstroMet on May 19, 2011 23:25:01 GMT
I'm well aware of 'anthropocene' propaganda Thermostat, however unlike you, I have strong powers of critical thinking and do not and will never drink the kool-aid. In short, what you are buying into is your own demise as a human being. You do realize this, do you not? You are being told that YOU are a threat to the planet. That your carbon body and the carbon you exhale - in fact, your very existence itself - is a threat to the Earth and so YOU must be eliminated. How can you be so gullible and utterly stupid? Astromet, When you refer to 'anthropocene propaganda' are you referring to the Geological Society of London or the UK's Royal Society? or both? Thermostat, do you equate that the "anthropocene" bullshit which comes out of a brand name royal society or a geological society somehow smells better than say, your generic anthropocene bullshit? It's all the same bullshit kiddo. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 20, 2011 1:39:40 GMT
Regarding this topic of the Anthropocene, the context of the discussion thus far is useful for forum members to appreciate. In introducing this topic I have referred to a number of sources: the scientific journal Nature; the Geological Society of London; the scientific journal, the Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society A; and (correct me if such a link is inappropriate for this forum), a "You Tube" video by Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director ANU Climate Change Institute www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/content/author/willThese sources have subsequently been referred to collectively as "propaganda" by one forum member. I beg to differ. It appears that this particular forum member is confused. But this is a discussion forum, not the literature. Please, feel free to reply. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 20, 2011 1:49:01 GMT
More directly to the point, I find Astromet's assertions regarding the topic of the Anthropocene to be completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 20, 2011 3:11:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 20, 2011 4:09:46 GMT
This link at National Geographic has some interesting stuff regarding the anthropocene.
My initial thought was that since this is the first prospective naming of a geologic epoch that it will be completely wrong. I figured it gets a huge headstart in the direction from the fact it is done by people largely disconnected from the real world who live in little cloistered offices surround by books as opposed to empirical experiences.
Then I read your link and found this conclusion:
"Crutzen, who started the debate, thinks its real value won't lie in revisions to geology textbooks. His purpose is broader: He wants to focus our attention on the consequences of our collective action—and on how we might still avert the worst. "What I hope," he says, "is that the term 'Anthropocene' will be a warning to the world.""
Gee, its not even a geologic epoch after all its a sales pitch! LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 20, 2011 4:21:30 GMT
This link at National Geographic has some interesting stuff regarding the anthropocene.My initial thought was that since this is the first prospective naming of a geologic epoch that it will be completely wrong. I figured it gets a huge headstart in the direction from the fact it is done by people largely disconnected from the real world who live in little cloistered offices surround by books as opposed to empirical experiences. Then I read your link and found this conclusion: "Crutzen, who started the debate, thinks its real value won't lie in revisions to geology textbooks. His purpose is broader: He wants to focus our attention on the consequences of our collective action—and on how we might still avert the worst. "What I hope," he says, "is that the term 'Anthropocene' will be a warning to the world.""Gee, its not even a geologic epoch after all its a sales pitch! LOL! icefisher, fair enough. I agree, there are issues to be debated. |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on May 21, 2011 0:50:32 GMT
This link at National Geographic has some interesting stuff regarding the anthropocene.My initial thought was that since this is the first prospective naming of a geologic epoch that it will be completely wrong. I figured it gets a huge headstart in the direction from the fact it is done by people largely disconnected from the real world who live in little cloistered offices surround by books as opposed to empirical experiences. Then I read your link and found this conclusion: "Crutzen, who started the debate, thinks its real value won't lie in revisions to geology textbooks. His purpose is broader: He wants to focus our attention on the consequences of our collective action—and on how we might still avert the worst. "What I hope," he says, "is that the term 'Anthropocene' will be a warning to the world.""Gee, its not even a geologic epoch after all its a sales pitch! LOL! Perhaps we should call it the Algorocene... |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 22, 2011 1:44:21 GMT
This link at National Geographic has some interesting stuff regarding the anthropocene.My initial thought was that since this is the first prospective naming of a geologic epoch that it will be completely wrong. I figured it gets a huge headstart in the direction from the fact it is done by people largely disconnected from the real world who live in little cloistered offices surround by books as opposed to empirical experiences. Then I read your link and found this conclusion: "Crutzen, who started the debate, thinks its real value won't lie in revisions to geology textbooks. His purpose is broader: He wants to focus our attention on the consequences of our collective action—and on how we might still avert the worst. "What I hope," he says, "is that the term 'Anthropocene' will be a warning to the world.""Gee, its not even a geologic epoch after all its a sales pitch! LOL! Perhaps we should call it the Algorocene... throttleup, I don't get the objection. This present discussion is between geologists. Do you have an issue with the nobel laureate who started this discussion? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 22, 2011 2:18:10 GMT
Ok....the question seems to be....is man affecting climate.
The answer to me........regional climate yes, total climate?......the jury is still out.
The reason I state that is that I do not find co2 to be a climate driver. When looking at the properties of co2, to assume that it is a driver, one has to ignore all past evidence concerning co2 and temperature patterns. I do find that I do not choose to ignore this past history.
Temperatures have dropped in the past while co2 rose. Some call it the 800 year lag effect. Well, that tells me that the current temperature rise is not a result of increased co2 as we have not had 800 years pass since it started to rise.
We all know that h2o is the primary driver of temperatures. We all know the hydrological cycle is the result of changes in air pressure that provide the inputs for that hydrological cycle.
We all know that in the past there were wide climate flucuations. I will use the current flooding on the Mississippi River as an indication. The river levels have not broken the records from past flucuations in precip in most areas. Yet, there are some that are preaching gloom and doom because of the water level.
We all know that approx 5,000 years ago the north shore of Greenland was ice free. That will take a dramatic reduction in Arctic Ice levels compared to now. Some will claim it was a higher TSI level, yet the error bars in the proxy data are large enough for that claim to be quit questionable.
No one has a good handle on the h20 cycle. Svensmark seems to be correct. This presents another hurdle for the AGW folks to climb, as the current models do not incorporate his theory into their outcomes. In that regard, that tells me that the output of said models is erroneous as one can NOT ignore a potentially large driver of climate.
A slight change in clouds results in such a large change in albedo of the earth that it isn't funny. Low level clouds capture wayyyyyyyy more heat than c02 even thinks about.
Just a few tidbits that require further study.
As a former AGW advocate, who thought the science was quit good, I have found that the science is not quit good. Papers built on papers, ignoring empical measurements does not cut it.
I am still a conservative who believes that man has to conserve energy, or any other finite item we have been blessed with. I also believe that people are smart enough, in the long run, to conserve.
The idea of a tax, increased costs does not cut it. This will result in slowing economic activity that will kill more people than AGW ever thought about.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 22, 2011 2:31:31 GMT
Ok....the question seems to be....is man affecting climate. The answer to me........regional climate yes, total climate?......the jury is still out. The reason I state that is that I do not find co2 to be a climate driver. When looking at the properties of co2, to assume that it is a driver, one has to ignore all past evidence concerning co2 and temperature patterns. I do find that I do not choose to ignore this past history. Temperatures have dropped in the past while co2 rose. Some call it the 800 year lag effect. Well, that tells me that the current temperature rise is not a result of increased co2 as we have not had 800 years pass since it started to rise. We all know that h2o is the primary driver of temperatures. We all know the hydrological cycle is the result of changes in air pressure that provide the inputs for that hydrological cycle. We all know that in the past there were wide climate flucuations. I will use the current flooding on the Mississippi River as an indication. The river levels have not broken the records from past flucuations in precip in most areas. Yet, there are some that are preaching gloom and doom because of the water level. We all know that approx 5,000 years ago the north shore of Greenland was ice free. That will take a dramatic reduction in Arctic Ice levels compared to now. Some will claim it was a higher TSI level, yet the error bars in the proxy data are large enough for that claim to be quit questionable. No one has a good handle on the h20 cycle. Svensmark seems to be correct. This presents another hurdle for the AGW folks to climb, as the current models do not incorporate his theory into their outcomes. In that regard, that tells me that the output of said models is erroneous as one can NOT ignore a potentially large driver of climate. A slight change in clouds results in such a large change in albedo of the earth that it isn't funny. Low level clouds capture wayyyyyyyy more heat than c02 even thinks about. Just a few tidbits that require further study. As a former AGW advocate, who thought the science was quit good, I have found that the science is not quit good. Papers built on papers, ignoring empical measurements does not cut it. I am still a conservative who believes that man has to conserve energy, or any other finite item we have been blessed with. I also believe that people are smart enough, in the long run, to conserve. The idea of a tax, increased costs does not cut it. This will result in slowing economic activity that will kill more people than AGW ever thought about. sigurdur, Glad to see you have joined this discussion... much appreciated. Just fyi, this thing about 'the anthropocene' is not just about climate change. There are subjects like 'the nitrogen cycle' and 'who knew'. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 23, 2011 22:05:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 23, 2011 22:14:52 GMT
More directly to the point, I find Astromet's assertions regarding the topic of the Anthropocene to be completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated. par for his course |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 23, 2011 22:26:06 GMT
Ya know what concerns me more than anything? That the OHT system is changing. And by that change we are in for interesting times.
What causes said change? The temperature of the ocean. What has caused the temp of the ocean to rise? IT is not air temps, but rather increased short wave radiation because of the drop in cloud cover. Is that drop a result of the strong solar cycles in the very recent past? Might be.....I see correlation and causeation if Svensmarks theory is correct. A lot of things affect OHC and OHT. Both are extremely important actual drivers of climate.
I was quit surprised to see cause and effect to the AMO concerning, of all things, Tibetian snowfall patterns. I still have a hard time wrapping my knowledge around this that it can be true, but a published paper indicates it is.
This has changed my thinking, at least at this time, as to how powerful the OHT system is. Maybe there is more to this than one had thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by stranger on May 23, 2011 23:16:40 GMT
Reading the names and fields of the participants in the "3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability" reminds me of the time the grand dame of a very rich family called in a firm of civil engineers to unstop a plugged toilet. There are many presumed experts in many fields, but there is "not a plumber in the house."
But taking a sampling of the participants does show one common field of expertise. The five sampled "experts" are very expert at grant grubbing.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 24, 2011 2:10:48 GMT
Reading the names and fields of the participants in the "3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability" reminds me of the time the grand dame of a very rich family called in a firm of civil engineers to unstop a plugged toilet. There are many presumed experts in many fields, but there is "not a plumber in the house." But taking a sampling of the participants does show one common field of expertise. The five sampled "experts" are very expert at grant grubbing. Stranger Stranger, Are you suggesting that accomplished scientists in Physics and Chemistry don't have a useful understanding of current topics in geophysics and atmospheric chemistry? |
|
