Jump to content
BANGKOK 26 June 2019 00:44
geovalin

New Findings Hint at The True Reasons For The Decline of This Ancient Civilisation

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, phycokiller said:

Im with you up until "There are many scientists who think that human emissions of CO2, at the current rates, have a relatively insignificant effect on the current warming." unless by many you mean about half a dozen

Looks like you've been duped by the common mantra, repeated ad nauseam, that 97% of all scientists (in the field of climatology) believe that the current warming is unprecedented, is driven mainly by human emissions of CO2 and will be catastrophic if the emissions are not stopped.

 

If you dig into the background of how this figure was derived you'll find that this figure of 97% applies only to those scientists who are willing to express an opinion of certainty on the issue, which is a minority of them. Most scientists who are genuinely unbiased realize that the issue is too complex and chaotic for any certainty to be expressed.

 

One of the founders of this 97% myth is John Cook, creator of the blog Skeptical Science. In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature, that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Looks like you've been duped by the common mantra, repeated ad nauseam, that 97% of all scientists (in the field of climatology) believe that the current warming is unprecedented, is driven mainly by human emissions of CO2 and will be catastrophic if the emissions are not stopped.

 

If you dig into the background of how this figure was derived you'll find that this figure of 97% applies only to those scientists who are willing to express an opinion of certainty on the issue, which is a minority of them. Most scientists who are genuinely unbiased realize that the issue is too complex and chaotic for any certainty to be expressed.

 

One of the founders of this 97% myth is John Cook, creator of the blog Skeptical Science. In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature, that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! 
 

there's plenty if evidence humans pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is the main cause of the current change, and nobody has come up with an alternative explanation, altho Im sure the oil companies would pay them handsomely if they could

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2019 at 2:59 PM, VincentRJ said:

which Climate Change alarmists seem to deny.

Why would anyone deny that, especially if he is a climate researchers? Climate change deniers are denying everything, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 5:14 AM, VincentRJ said:

Of course not. That would be very silly. 😁

 

The message that is being promoted by the politicians and the scientists whose jobs rely upon government funding, is that human caused CO2 emissions are the primary driver of the current warming, and that we can stop the warming, and the predicted increase in the severity of extreme weather events, by halting our emissions of CO2.

 

For some strange reason it is thought that warming is 'bad', yet the ancient Khmer civilization began around the time of the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period in Europe, and flourished during the course of that warm period, just as the Vikings flourished in Greenland.

 

When the climate began changing from warm to cool, during the 14th century, the Vikings deserted Greenland and the Khmers deserted their civilization around Angkor Wat.

 

If it's true that rising CO2 levels are the primary cause of the current warming, which I doubt, as do lots of very qualified scientists whose research is marginalized, then maintaining the current levels of CO2 could protect us from the devastation of the next 'cool' period which, in the past, appears to have at least contributed to the destruction of the Khmer civilization.

 

We might be shooting ourselves in the foot by reducing CO2 levels. We should try harder to learn from history.

Sorry, you have not much clue about the topic.

 

Current climate change is solely caused by human made CO2. If you find another reason interacting and supporting the current climate change, publish it and you get piled over with Nobel Prizes.

 

The Vikings never "flourished" in Greenlands. They had a few settlements, perhaps about 500 people, and they died when the climate changed back to "normal" or "average". Meanwhile we have settlement there again. (With there I mean the south tip of Greenland, with a few farms, they even grow potatoes again. Not the inuit population)

 

There won't be a next "cool period", we have to much CO2 in the atmosphere for that. Or do you mean shifts between El Nino and La Nina causing localized cool periods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 3:01 PM, VincentRJ said:

There are many scientists who think that human emissions of CO2, at the current rates, have a relatively insignificant effect on the current warming.

Care to point a few out? I know no one (and I worked for a climate institute).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 1:03 PM, VincentRJ said:

Methane might be a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 per molecule, but the total quantity in the atmosphere is even tinier than the quantity of CO2. Currently there is around 404 'parts per million' of CO2 in the atmosphere. In recent years the amount of Methane has risen from 0.7 ppm to 1.8 ppm. The amounts are so tiny they are usually described in 'parts per billion'.

Ooh! I'm getting really nervous. I'm trembling with anxiety. 😁

 

Water vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for perhaps as much as 85% of the total greenhouse effect. However, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere at any particular location and time, varies considerably. It can be as high as 4% (a thousand times greater than the amount of CO2) in hot, humid conditions, and close to zero in the dry deserts. Perhaps on average, it comprises about 2-3% of the lower atmosphere or troposphere.
 

your tiny amount rational is pretty emotional, sort of like saying germs are small so Im not scared of them. green house properties of gasses are testable and have been well known for a long time. nobody is questioning it.  on the subject of water vapor you are correct, but its also testable and is rising with the temperature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phycokiller said:

your tiny amount rational is pretty emotional, sort of like saying germs are small so Im not scared of them. green house properties of gasses are testable and have been well known for a long time. nobody is questioning it.  on the subject of water vapor you are correct, but its also testable and is rising with the temperature

I think you mean 'nobody who lacks an understanding of the methodology of science is questioning it. True scientists question everything.

 

Emotional? Just the opposite. Alarmism is emotional. Skepticism is rational. Comparing tiny quantities of beneficial inanimate chemicals, such as CO2 and Methane, with lifeforms such as germs, is ridiculous, especially if you are using the usual definition of germ as: 'a microorganism causing disease'. 

 

CO2 is essential for life. Disease-causing germs are not.

 

Methane also plays an essential role in the health of soils. The planet’s ecosystem – made up of many habitats and associated species – both emit and absorb methane. A healthy soil, for instance, contains many microorganisms all playing a complex role in nutrient cycling and regulating the gases of the atmosphere.
Methanotrophs (prokaryotes that metabolize methane as their only source of carbon and energy) are found in aerobic healthy soils, like those of the plains of Africa and America that once supported more wild ruminants than we have domestic livestock today. The first step of the complex but highly effective cycling of methane happens right under the noses of the grazers as they munch.

 

Here are some links showing the importance of methane and its potential uses, in addition to its use as fossil fuel.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120827074226.htm

 

"Methane is taken up by methane oxidizing bacteria, which in turn are eaten by zooplankton and other aquatic organisms. These organisms eventually end up in fish stomachs, meaning that food webs not only feed off organic carbon from plants in the lake or from the surrounding land; but also from deep-lying and oxygen-free, yet carbon-rich, sediment stores where methane is formed.
More studies are being planned to show the potentially vast importance that methane could have on the food chain in different types of lakes and conditions. For example, what happens in Swedish lakes during the winter?"

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2112298-food-made-from-natural-gas-will-soon-feed-farm-animals-and-us/

 

"A biotechnology company called Calysta, based in Menlo Park, California, is set to announce the first ever large-scale factory that uses microbes to turn natural gas – methane – into a high-protein food for the animals we eat. The factory, which will be built in the US in collaboration with food-giant Cargill, will produce 200,000 tonnes of feed a year.
The methane-made food has already been approved in the European Union for feeding to farmed fish and livestock such as pigs. Calysta is seeking approval in the US, too – and not just for farm animals. “We want to take it all the way to cats and dogs, and potentially even humans,” says the head of Calysta, Alan Shaw."

 

Germs! Really!! 😁🤣
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 8:27 PM, VincentRJ said:

I think you mean 'nobody who lacks an understanding of the methodology of science is questioning it. True scientists question everything.

 

Emotional? Just the opposite. Alarmism is emotional. Skepticism is rational. Comparing tiny quantities of beneficial inanimate chemicals, such as CO2 and Methane, with lifeforms such as germs, is ridiculous, especially if you are using the usual definition of germ as: 'a microorganism causing disease'. 

 

CO2 is essential for life. Disease-causing germs are not.

 

Methane also plays an essential role in the health of soils. The planet’s ecosystem – made up of many habitats and associated species – both emit and absorb methane. A healthy soil, for instance, contains many microorganisms all playing a complex role in nutrient cycling and regulating the gases of the atmosphere.
Methanotrophs (prokaryotes that metabolize methane as their only source of carbon and energy) are found in aerobic healthy soils, like those of the plains of Africa and America that once supported more wild ruminants than we have domestic livestock today. The first step of the complex but highly effective cycling of methane happens right under the noses of the grazers as they munch.

 

Here are some links showing the importance of methane and its potential uses, in addition to its use as fossil fuel.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120827074226.htm

 

"Methane is taken up by methane oxidizing bacteria, which in turn are eaten by zooplankton and other aquatic organisms. These organisms eventually end up in fish stomachs, meaning that food webs not only feed off organic carbon from plants in the lake or from the surrounding land; but also from deep-lying and oxygen-free, yet carbon-rich, sediment stores where methane is formed.
More studies are being planned to show the potentially vast importance that methane could have on the food chain in different types of lakes and conditions. For example, what happens in Swedish lakes during the winter?"

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2112298-food-made-from-natural-gas-will-soon-feed-farm-animals-and-us/

 

"A biotechnology company called Calysta, based in Menlo Park, California, is set to announce the first ever large-scale factory that uses microbes to turn natural gas – methane – into a high-protein food for the animals we eat. The factory, which will be built in the US in collaboration with food-giant Cargill, will produce 200,000 tonnes of feed a year.
The methane-made food has already been approved in the European Union for feeding to farmed fish and livestock such as pigs. Calysta is seeking approval in the US, too – and not just for farm animals. “We want to take it all the way to cats and dogs, and potentially even humans,” says the head of Calysta, Alan Shaw."

 

Germs! Really!! 😁🤣
 

sure, co2 and methane are great, so is water until you drown in it. point was that big or small is all relative, its the effect that matters, and the effects of greenhouse gasses are well known

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, phycokiller said:

sure, co2 and methane are great, so is water until you drown in it. point was that big or small is all relative, its the effect that matters, and the effects of greenhouse gasses are well known

The effects of greenhouse gases and the effects of a million other variable factors which can influence climate to some degree, are definitely not well known. That's the problem. 

 

The other problem is that most people find it difficult live with uncertainty. It's why religions are necessary, and why expressions of certainty about the effects of human emissions of CO2 are considered to be politically useful to control the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...