Just like being at home
Replies sorted oldest to newest
It is indeed. Nice to see you heard the word. 
Hi EFFT
Exiting times
Exiting times
Hey! 
Hi gang I'm here (whereever this is) but will the others make it before THE END of C4?
Hey mufc - how did you get your animated smiley to work?
quote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
Hey mufc - how did you get your animated smiley to work?
Just a bit of pasting Luci <--showing off now
Hey SoM Hows it going??
Any sign of suricat?
Any sign of suricat?
I wonder if they'll get rid of C4 forums altogether, or just shut down the posting and archive the threads?
Some sites and browsers aren't compatible, you just have to get the right one(s).quote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
Hey mufc - how did you get your animated smiley to work?
Suricat's name is on the list of members, but hasn't posted yet..quote:Originally posted by mufcdiver:
Hey SoM Hows it going??
Any sign of suricat?
mufcdiver.
Yes good buddy, but this is the first. I stayed aboard to find which way my fellow cut & pasters would jump ship before leaving myself.
Glad it wasn't to Discovery. Their servers are so slowww.
PS. EFFT; give me a break. I don't type that fast.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Hey SoM Hows it going??
Any sign of suricat?
Yes good buddy, but this is the first. I stayed aboard to find which way my fellow cut & pasters would jump ship before leaving myself.
Glad it wasn't to Discovery. Their servers are so slowww.
PS. EFFT; give me a break. I don't type that fast.
Best regards, suricat.
Sorry, didn't see WHEN you had arrived, just that you had.quote:Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.quote:
Hey SoM Hows it going??
Any sign of suricat?
Yes good buddy, but this is the first. I stayed aboard to find which way my fellow cut & pasters would jump ship before leaving myself.
Glad it wasn't to Discovery. Their servers are so slowww.
PS. EFFT; give me a break. I don't type that fast.
Best regards, suricat.
Nice to see you have all arrived safely
Hey Luciebee what did you mean by:-
"What makes me cross is that you spend so much time and effort quibbling about the straightness of the shaft of the hockey stick and totally ignore what is happening to the head!"
"What makes me cross is that you spend so much time and effort quibbling about the straightness of the shaft of the hockey stick and totally ignore what is happening to the head!"
It was still there at 12:10, just couln't post anymore.quote:Originally posted by mufcdiver:
I wonder if they'll get rid of C4 forums altogether, or just shut down the posting and archive the threads?
Archiving will only cost them more money - so I expect they'll just lose it down a big hole somewhere.
I've already done a fair bit of archiving over the past few days. Just a tiny bit time consuming!
I've already done a fair bit of archiving over the past few days. Just a tiny bit time consuming!
With regard to the hockey stick comment - sorry - twas having a wee rant! It's just that the contrast of the temperature increase over the past 100 years is so great compared to that over the past 2000 years. And yet, those who seek to deny AGW, seem to concentrate on the accuracy of the data rather than asking what on earth is causing the anomaly at the head end of the stick (which is based on real data!). That's all...
By the way, have you seen the latest issue of Nature?
By the way, have you seen the latest issue of Nature?
quote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
Gotta get me some chocolate cake
Luciebee
Mann oh Mann! (sorry I just can't resist it).
You need to look over a longer time scale then you will see both warming and cooling has occured at a faster rates than the planet has experienced over recent times. Nothing unusual.
In fact the rate of temperature increase noted between 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1970 to 2000 are all at similar rates (see the IPCC 4th Report, Technical Summary). And the "hockey stick" graph has now been comprehensively demolished because the use of real data was biased and incorrectly (?deliberately) manipulated in the computer programme (McKitrick, Wegman). But we are now cooling, and this is real data too. Do you not believe it to be true?
Nature, no too expensive for an old retiree like me, and I read that they only print AGW articles and reject those that question the unproved CO2 hypothesis.
And you still have not told me where you get your water! remember?
quote:the temperature increase over the past 100 years is so great compared to that over the past 2000 years.
Mann oh Mann! (sorry I just can't resist it).
You need to look over a longer time scale then you will see both warming and cooling has occured at a faster rates than the planet has experienced over recent times. Nothing unusual.
In fact the rate of temperature increase noted between 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1970 to 2000 are all at similar rates (see the IPCC 4th Report, Technical Summary). And the "hockey stick" graph has now been comprehensively demolished because the use of real data was biased and incorrectly (?deliberately) manipulated in the computer programme (McKitrick, Wegman). But we are now cooling, and this is real data too. Do you not believe it to be true?
Nature, no too expensive for an old retiree like me, and I read that they only print AGW articles and reject those that question the unproved CO2 hypothesis.
And you still have not told me where you get your water! remember?
quote:Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.quote:
Hey SoM Hows it going??
Any sign of suricat?
Yes good buddy, but this is the first. I stayed aboard to find which way my fellow cut & pasters would jump ship before leaving myself.
Glad it wasn't to Discovery. Their servers are so slowww.
PS. EFFT; give me a break. I don't type that fast.
Best regards, suricat.
Hey suricat, glad to see you made it
quote:You need to look over a longer time scale then you will see both warming and cooling has occured at a faster rates than the planet has experienced over recent times. Nothing unusual.
Bob Carter covers this Geo in the video I linked to in SoMs all new thread.
quote:Bob Carter covers this Geo in the video I linked to in SoMs all new thread.
Thanks mucfdiver. The important point is that these rapid warming and cooling rates do not appear to be linked in any way to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, unless there are problems with proxy sampling.
Bang goes the hypothesis that CO2 is the main climate driver.
Geo - Steve_M has been referring to you on the RealClimate site...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=590
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=590
I Picked these from the RealClimate site Luciebee linked, two from many.
Quote
"pete best Says:
19 August 2008 at 5:12 AM
Very worrying but are geologists climate scientists ? Are climate scientists geologists or does climate science take knowledge from geology only. Why are geologists discussing climate science anyway ?"
End Quote
Me:-
For the very simple reason it was the geological sciences in the first place that demonstrated the world does not have a stable climate. The use of geological techniques enables recent, historic and ancient climates to be investigated and, I hesitate to use the word, modelled.
Why no Geologists on the IPCC Panel?
Also, from Prof Bob Carter:-
quote
"Bob Carter Says:
19 August 2008 at 6:01 PM
Dear Phil Scadden,
Itâs always nice to hear from old students, and especially to find out that they are gainfully employed and doing well.
You mention that âit is very disappointing to see his (i.e. my) current stanceâ regarding the possible danger of the human effect on global climate - which I would agree is certainly a topic that needs careful consideration.
However, my current âstanceâ is the same as the stance that has stood me in good stead throughout my professional career. It is that matters of science need to be determined by empirical evidence, not by computer modelling - heuristically valuable though that can sometimes be.
And as things stand at the moment, after IPCC 4AR, I am unaware of any empirical evidence that dangerous warming, or any measurable warming for that matter, can be attributed to a human causation.
This is not so much a stance as a statement of fact. What is it about it that disappoints you?
Best.
Bob Carter"
End quote
Me:-
As I noted in an earlier post elsewhere, where is the evidence after 20 years investigation at a cost of US$50 billion?
Thanks Luciebee for the reference, Best to Steve_M.
Quote
"pete best Says:
19 August 2008 at 5:12 AM
Very worrying but are geologists climate scientists ? Are climate scientists geologists or does climate science take knowledge from geology only. Why are geologists discussing climate science anyway ?"
End Quote
Me:-
For the very simple reason it was the geological sciences in the first place that demonstrated the world does not have a stable climate. The use of geological techniques enables recent, historic and ancient climates to be investigated and, I hesitate to use the word, modelled.
Why no Geologists on the IPCC Panel?
Also, from Prof Bob Carter:-
quote
"Bob Carter Says:
19 August 2008 at 6:01 PM
Dear Phil Scadden,
Itâs always nice to hear from old students, and especially to find out that they are gainfully employed and doing well.
You mention that âit is very disappointing to see his (i.e. my) current stanceâ regarding the possible danger of the human effect on global climate - which I would agree is certainly a topic that needs careful consideration.
However, my current âstanceâ is the same as the stance that has stood me in good stead throughout my professional career. It is that matters of science need to be determined by empirical evidence, not by computer modelling - heuristically valuable though that can sometimes be.
And as things stand at the moment, after IPCC 4AR, I am unaware of any empirical evidence that dangerous warming, or any measurable warming for that matter, can be attributed to a human causation.
This is not so much a stance as a statement of fact. What is it about it that disappoints you?
Best.
Bob Carter"
End quote
Me:-
As I noted in an earlier post elsewhere, where is the evidence after 20 years investigation at a cost of US$50 billion?
Thanks Luciebee for the reference, Best to Steve_M.
If you can't see it, then I don't think I can help you further.
quote:If you can't see it, then I don't think I can help you further.
Too subtle for me, you are going to have to explain. I did note however the author of the article noted that he did not attend the meeting he was writing about. Was that it?
hey!! i might join in some intelligent convos now i'm off work for the next 9 months or so!!
I would just add:
Do geologists know *why* the Earth does not have a stable climate?
Do geologists know *why* the Earth does not have a stable climate?
quote:Do geologists know *why* the Earth does not have a stable climate?
Probably no better than anyone else for the short term. We have to judge what other disciplines propose to see if it fits with what we know.
However from a geological standpoint it depends on the time frame you wish to discus.
For example over the long term continental drift changed the mass distribution of the planet leading to a number of changes in ocean currents, winds, albedo, etc all changing the worlds climate. Then there is erosion of mountain chains, the building of mountain chains both changing wind patterns, etc and climate.
Short very term (couple of years) there is the effect of volcanic eruptions.
Then of course there was the stromatolite conversion of atmospheric CO2 to fixed carbon and free oxygen over a very long time, that took billions of years and would have effected the worlds climate.
The one thing the geological sciences have shown is that over millions of years the worlds climate has dramatically varied, mankind is not the cause of climate change.
Geoman.
Yes, and these "hydrocarbons" (fixed carbon) were locked into the Earth's crust as what we know today as coal and oil. Then later, plants, the descendants of stromatolites, did the same thing producing the hydrocarbon energy reserves that we enjoy today.
The "warming hypothesis" suggests that the use of these hydrocarbons that were "locked away" is causing a reversal of the original effect by flora. Do you think this is a rational explanation for the scenario? Personally, I think a careful watch on oxygen atmospheric percentage is more indicative of any problem for fossil fuel use (together with their associated pollutants of course).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Then of course there was the stromatolite conversion of atmospheric CO2 to fixed carbon and free oxygen over a very long time, that took billions of years and would have effected the worlds climate.
Yes, and these "hydrocarbons" (fixed carbon) were locked into the Earth's crust as what we know today as coal and oil. Then later, plants, the descendants of stromatolites, did the same thing producing the hydrocarbon energy reserves that we enjoy today.
The "warming hypothesis" suggests that the use of these hydrocarbons that were "locked away" is causing a reversal of the original effect by flora. Do you think this is a rational explanation for the scenario? Personally, I think a careful watch on oxygen atmospheric percentage is more indicative of any problem for fossil fuel use (together with their associated pollutants of course).
Best regards, suricat.
If you can accept that one set of organisms (stromatolites) was capable of changing the climate, why won't some people accept that we can too?
Luciebee
Yes and that's the point. I do believe that mankind has and will continue to effect the world's climate. However to what degree? All man's activities from farming to building cities will have an effect, both locally and collectively world wide. So I go back to my first question, where is the evidence that man's effect is causing global warming greater than the natural variation in climate?
quote:If you can accept that one set of organisms (stromatolites) was capable of changing the climate, why won't some people accept that we can too?
Yes and that's the point. I do believe that mankind has and will continue to effect the world's climate. However to what degree? All man's activities from farming to building cities will have an effect, both locally and collectively world wide. So I go back to my first question, where is the evidence that man's effect is causing global warming greater than the natural variation in climate?
quote:Originally posted by Geoman:
Luciebeequote:If you can accept that one set of organisms (stromatolites) was capable of changing the climate, why won't some people accept that we can too?
Yes and that's the point. I do believe that mankind has and will continue to effect the world's climate. However to what degree? All man's activities from farming to building cities will have an effect, both locally and collectively world wide. So I go back to my first question, where is the evidence that man's effect is causing global warming greater than the natural variation in climate?
Just what I was going to say Geo
Go read Ruddiman's book like I told you to!
'k reading the first chapter nowquote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
Go read Ruddiman's book like I told you to!
Suricat
Most of the original locked carbon formed by the stromatolites has already been released back into the environment millions of years ago by tectonic processes. And as an example for today most of the CO2 released by the Pacific rim of volcanoes comes from the subducted plate where carbon was deposited on the sea floor (dead animals or plants) or fixed in the marine rocks organically or chemically. Nothing is permanent on this planet. It recycles itself very efficiently. It looks after itself very well and does not need our "help".
Our carbon energy today does come from ancient sunshine, trapped by one form or another. I am not sure what you are getting at in reference to atmospheric oxygen percentage.
quote:The "warming hypothesis" suggests that the use of these hydrocarbons that were "locked away" is causing a reversal of the original effect by flora. Do you think this is a rational explanation for the scenario? Personally, I think a careful watch on oxygen atmospheric percentage is more indicative of any problem for fossil fuel use (together with their associated pollutants of course).
Most of the original locked carbon formed by the stromatolites has already been released back into the environment millions of years ago by tectonic processes. And as an example for today most of the CO2 released by the Pacific rim of volcanoes comes from the subducted plate where carbon was deposited on the sea floor (dead animals or plants) or fixed in the marine rocks organically or chemically. Nothing is permanent on this planet. It recycles itself very efficiently. It looks after itself very well and does not need our "help".
Our carbon energy today does come from ancient sunshine, trapped by one form or another. I am not sure what you are getting at in reference to atmospheric oxygen percentage.