Hawking's Life's Work About to be Falsified

[Old Rocks]

LOL. You know as little about me as I know about you. I used this man's maps and information both for work and for leasure hiking on Big Canyon Mountain. And I met him in the setting of a International Field Conferance on Ophiolites. Canyon Mountain Ophiolites were one of three legs of that conferance. We drove three buses over Bald Mountain, and listened to an interesting discussion between Dr. Thayer and Hans Lallemant. At the Elks Club in John Day that night, two Australian lads lectured on the Spinifex Formation.

ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/Memorials/v34/Thayer.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

There are a number of times in the geological history of the earth that a waming became selfsustaining, the PT extinction was just one of them.

There is ZERO evidence that warming caused the PT extinction. There's plenty that supports cold as a cause however.

LOL. Says you. While the whole of the geologic community states otherwise.

The Permo-Triassic (P-T) Extinction


In 1996 Henk Visscher and his colleagues reported extreme abundances of fossil fungal cells in land sediments at the P*T boundary. There are hints that the fungi-enriched "layer" is the record of a single, world-wide crisis, with the fungi breaking down massive amounts of vegetation that had been catastrophically killed (there were no termites yet). Such a fungal layer is unique in the geological record of the past 500 m.y. The best evidence we have suggests that there were major extinctions among gymnosperms, especially in Europe, and among the coal-generating floras of the Southern Hemisphere. The vegetation of the early Triassic in Europe looks "weedy," that is, invasive of open habitats. Andrew Knoll and his colleagues have suggested that the extinction was caused by a catastrophic overturn of an ocean supersaturated in carbon dioxide. This would result in tremendous, close to instantaneous, degassing that would roll a cloud of (dense) carbon dioxide over the ocean surface and low-lying coastal areas. An analog might be the recent catastrophic degassing of Lake Nyos, in the Cameroon, where hundreds of people were killed as carbon dioxide degassed from a volcanic lake and cascaded down valleys nearby. The difference is that the proposed P*T disaster was global.

In this scenario, the carbon dioxide build-up results from the global geography that included the gigantic ocean Panthalassa. Knoll and colleagues speculated that the abnormal ocean circulation in Panthalassa did not include enough downward transport of oxygenated surface water to keep the deep water oxygenated. With normal respiration and decay of dead organisms, the deep water evolved into an anoxic mass loaded with dissolved carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen sulfide. Carbon continued to fall to the sea floor from normal surface productivity, but it was deposited and buried because there was no dissolved oxygen to oxidize it. As carbon dioxide levels fell in the atmosphere, the earth and the ocean surface cooled. Finally, the surface waters became dense enough to sink, triggering a catastrophe as the CO2-saturated deep waters were brought up to the surface, degassing violently. The event would trigger a greenhouse heating and a major climatic warming.

In 1998 Samuel Bowring and colleagues reported that the carbon isotope change at the P-T boundary in South China was probably very short-lived: a "spike" only perhaps 165,000 years long. This suggests a major (catastrophic?) addition of non-organic carbon to the ocean, rather than just a failure in the supply of organic carbon. They suggested three possible scenarios. Two of them are variants of the Siberian Traps scenario above, except that in addition the climatic changes could have set off an overturn of Panthalassa and a carbon dioxide crisis. Their third suggestion is an asteroid impact, but there is not much evidence for that.

Most recently, Greg Retallack and colleagues have found evidence in Australia that suggests a prolonged greenhouse warming set in right at the P-T boundary. Several paleoclimatic indicators suggest the same story, which implies that the role of carbon dioxide was the vital link between any environmental disasters and the extinctions. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could have been increased by volcanic eruptions, by oceanic turnover, and it would have been accentuated and prolonged if plants were killed off globally. (World floras and oceanic plankton would have to recover before the carbon dioxide could be drawn down out of the atmosphere.) We may be getting close to the answer here!

 

[westwall]

There are a number of times in the geological history of the earth that a waming became selfsustaining, the PT extinction was just one of them.

There is ZERO evidence that warming caused the PT extinction. There's plenty that supports cold as a cause however.

LOL. Says you. While the whole of the geologic community states otherwise.

The Permo-Triassic (P-T) Extinction


In 1996 Henk Visscher and his colleagues reported extreme abundances of fossil fungal cells in land sediments at the P*T boundary. There are hints that the fungi-enriched "layer" is the record of a single, world-wide crisis, with the fungi breaking down massive amounts of vegetation that had been catastrophically killed (there were no termites yet). Such a fungal layer is unique in the geological record of the past 500 m.y. The best evidence we have suggests that there were major extinctions among gymnosperms, especially in Europe, and among the coal-generating floras of the Southern Hemisphere. The vegetation of the early Triassic in Europe looks "weedy," that is, invasive of open habitats. Andrew Knoll and his colleagues have suggested that the extinction was caused by a catastrophic overturn of an ocean supersaturated in carbon dioxide. This would result in tremendous, close to instantaneous, degassing that would roll a cloud of (dense) carbon dioxide over the ocean surface and low-lying coastal areas. An analog might be the recent catastrophic degassing of Lake Nyos, in the Cameroon, where hundreds of people were killed as carbon dioxide degassed from a volcanic lake and cascaded down valleys nearby. The difference is that the proposed P*T disaster was global.

In this scenario, the carbon dioxide build-up results from the global geography that included the gigantic ocean Panthalassa. Knoll and colleagues speculated that the abnormal ocean circulation in Panthalassa did not include enough downward transport of oxygenated surface water to keep the deep water oxygenated. With normal respiration and decay of dead organisms, the deep water evolved into an anoxic mass loaded with dissolved carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen sulfide. Carbon continued to fall to the sea floor from normal surface productivity, but it was deposited and buried because there was no dissolved oxygen to oxidize it. As carbon dioxide levels fell in the atmosphere, the earth and the ocean surface cooled. Finally, the surface waters became dense enough to sink, triggering a catastrophe as the CO2-saturated deep waters were brought up to the surface, degassing violently. The event would trigger a greenhouse heating and a major climatic warming.

In 1998 Samuel Bowring and colleagues reported that the carbon isotope change at the P-T boundary in South China was probably very short-lived: a "spike" only perhaps 165,000 years long. This suggests a major (catastrophic?) addition of non-organic carbon to the ocean, rather than just a failure in the supply of organic carbon. They suggested three possible scenarios. Two of them are variants of the Siberian Traps scenario above, except that in addition the climatic changes could have set off an overturn of Panthalassa and a carbon dioxide crisis. Their third suggestion is an asteroid impact, but there is not much evidence for that.

Most recently, Greg Retallack and colleagues have found evidence in Australia that suggests a prolonged greenhouse warming set in right at the P-T boundary. Several paleoclimatic indicators suggest the same story, which implies that the role of carbon dioxide was the vital link between any environmental disasters and the extinctions. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could have been increased by volcanic eruptions, by oceanic turnover, and it would have been accentuated and prolonged if plants were killed off globally. (World floras and oceanic plankton would have to recover before the carbon dioxide could be drawn down out of the atmosphere.) We may be getting close to the answer here!

Only in the mind of a deluded internet twerp could a computer model be considered evidence. Here's a clue nimrod, computer models are FICTION. They may or may not correlate with reality, but whatever their correlation they are still FICTION. They are not, and will never be DATA.

Until you can get that simple fact through your thick skull, you will always just be an internet twerp.

I will post what the MAJORITY of the geologic community thinks caused the PT extinction when I get back. Right now I am leaving for the airport to visit with friends and their wonderful aircraft....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Westwall -

As I had thought might have become clear some months ago, I do not waste my time reading mindless spam from the spirtually broken, the intellectually bereft or the unbelievably truly obsessed.

I do not see your posts, do not read your posts, and certainly do not respond to your posts.

You stalk in vain.

You don't read your own posts? That explains a lot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SSDD -

Since we know that for the bulk of earth's history atmospheric CO2 was measured in the thousands of parts per million and there was no ice at one or both of the poles, that statement reeks of ignorance, political motivation, or both. He completely ignores 4,600 million years of earth history in order to make that statement.

Just to be clear here - you do actually know more about physics than Hawking does right?

So when you took an approach to the Second Law of Thermodynamics that Hawking rejects, it was because you understood better than he does - is that correct?

I just don't think I have seen the words "ignorance" and "Stephen Hawking" used too often in the same sentence before.


btw. The reason I ignore Westspam, Gslack and Kooks is because they do not have arguments to present. They have nothing to say and no means to say it. Why anyone would read any of their posts I have no idea at all.

Do you understand that theoretical cosmology and meteorology are two separate fields, and that the mere fact that you are qualified in one does not give you any claim of expertise in the other.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SSDD thinks Hawking is "ignorant". You heard it here first.

I think he is right. I also think that if you asked Hawking he would tell you the same thing because he is smart enough to know that treading a book does not make one an expert in a field, nor does it impart omniscience. There are plenty of fields Hawking doesn't have knowledge about. Being ignorant is not a character flaw, it is a fact of life fore everyone in the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, since few of us have the background to make competant judgements as to the accuracy of Crothers paper, we will just have to see how the general physics community accepts it.

Or, just a thought, we can read the short paper and form our own opinion.

I see. You have enough knowledge and education in Relitivity and Quantum Physics to judge such papers? Interesting.

You didn't read the paper, did you? I suggest you do before you comment on how intelligent you have to be to understand it.

 

[SSDD]

Well I am sure no one on this forum would ever think that Hawking would have anything like your knowledge of physics,SSDD. He is definitiely an ignoramus compared to you.

You don't need a PhD in physics to look at the historical record and see that no self sustaining warming took place with atmospheric CO2 levels at better than 7000 ppm, nor did self sustaining warming happen when the global mean temperature was nearly 22 degrees C.

So again, under what modern conditions so far outside of the historical record do you think hawking sees even a remote possiblity of self sustaining warming happening?

It's an easy question with an easy answer. The answer is none so either he is completely ignorant of the historical record, or his statement was a politicaly motivated lie. Which do you think it was, because there is no basis in fact to support it.

*Other than the fact that your reading skills are so poor that you don't understand what "may become" means.

Considering the historical conditions that didn't result in self sustaining warming, under what modern conditions do you think he was talking about? Do you think he was claiming that CO2 levels are likely to go higher than 7000ppm? Do you think he is claiming that the global mean temp will go beyond 22C? We know that self sustaining warming didn't happen under those conditions so exactly what conditions do you think he was talking about?

Considering what we know about the past, the suggestion that warming might become self sustaining at 400ppm or with a global mean temperature of slightly more than 14C is, in fact, an ignorant statement.

 

[idb]

But the far right "cult" is winning!!!


Because to people who dont have OCD abut climate change, this matters........

Spain braces for 'coldest summer in 200 years' - The Local



Until a week ago, New Yorkers had been freezing their asses off since late September of last year!!!



Indeed s0ns......reality is 95% perception.


Tell Spain that the planet is melting away!!!









For lay people who dont know, SSRO drugs are amazingly effective at stopping the rumination of thoughts so pervasive in the climate obsessed. Trust me......Im in the field, the shit works fucking great. Theres a whole world out there beyond angsting day and night about "science" thats not going to change shit in terms of public policy. Oil, coal and natural gas are going nowhere for a long, long, long, long, long time no matter how many billions of CO2 posts are thrown up on the intanets.

Yep.
Looking out your window tells you all you need to know about the state of the Global Climate.

That would be YOUR side. Every time there was a heat wave it was global warming. Every time there was a drought it was global warming.

You Sir, are hoist on your own petard.

Aah, the old "No I'm not you are" argument.
Ridiculous.

 

[westwall]

Yep.
Looking out your window tells you all you need to know about the state of the Global Climate.

That would be YOUR side. Every time there was a heat wave it was global warming. Every time there was a drought it was global warming.

You Sir, are hoist on your own petard.

Aah, the old "No I'm not you are" argument.
Ridiculous.

Yes, you are. You ascribe to we sceptics the very behavior that your side has exhibited for decades. Every weather "event' (you notice how nothing can be normal anymore?....that's from you clowns too) was evidence of global warming.

Enjoy the explosion....

 

[Saigon]

SSDD thinks Hawking is "ignorant". You heard it here first.

I think he is right. I also think that if you asked Hawking he would tell you the same thing because he is smart enough to know that treading a book does not make one an expert in a field, nor does it impart omniscience. There are plenty of fields Hawking doesn't have knowledge about. Being ignorant is not a character flaw, it is a fact of life fore everyone in the world.

If we were talking about Hawking's flan recipes, I might agree - but I am going to stick my neck out and say that Hawking knows more about physics than anyone on this board.

 

[Saigon]

Do you understand that theoretical cosmology and meteorology are two separate fields, and that the mere fact that you are qualified in one does not give you any claim of expertise in the other.

Which is a little like saying that being the world's leading authority on Sartre does not make someone an expert on de Beauvoir - it's plausible and laughable all at the same time.

Anyone with a very strong background in physics is going to be a better source of information of meteorology or cosmology than any high-school dropout shelfstacker.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SSDD thinks Hawking is "ignorant". You heard it here first.

I think he is right. I also think that if you asked Hawking he would tell you the same thing because he is smart enough to know that treading a book does not make one an expert in a field, nor does it impart omniscience. There are plenty of fields Hawking doesn't have knowledge about. Being ignorant is not a character flaw, it is a fact of life fore everyone in the world.

If we were talking about Hawking's flan recipes, I might agree - but I am going to stick my neck out and say that Hawking knows more about physics than anyone on this board.

Hawking knows more about cosmology than most people, but physics is a huge field, and I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there are actresses that know more about neuro physics than he does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you understand that theoretical cosmology and meteorology are two separate fields, and that the mere fact that you are qualified in one does not give you any claim of expertise in the other.

Which is a little like saying that being the world's leading authority on Sartre does not make someone an expert on de Beauvoir - it's plausible and laughable all at the same time.

Anyone with a very strong background in physics is going to be a better source of information of meteorology or cosmology than any high-school dropout shelfstacker.

Which explains why no one looks to you for information about those subjects.

 

[Saigon]

QW-

Anyone looking for information on physics would be better to turn to Hawking than me. Or you. Or SSDD.

The difference betweenus being that I am not self-obssessed or insecure enough to claim expertise on a field where I have only a basic knowledge.

 

[idb]

That would be YOUR side. Every time there was a heat wave it was global warming. Every time there was a drought it was global warming.

You Sir, are hoist on your own petard.

Aah, the old "No I'm not you are" argument.
Ridiculous.

Yes, you are. You ascribe to we sceptics the very behavior that your side has exhibited for decades. Every weather "event' (you notice how nothing can be normal anymore?....that's from you clowns too) was evidence of global warming.

Enjoy the explosion....

You've made up your mind but you're wrong.
Which is exactly why I like to jump on idiots like skookzz...hxz..sn.ei..whatever.
Weather events in isolation prove nothing.

Don't try and tell me that self-proclaimed 'sceptics' don't point to every unusual snowfall as evidence that there is no such thing as GW...you know that would be false.

Just as I know that there's a difference between a sceptic and a denier...surely you know that there's a difference between a researched proponent and an unquestioning acolyte.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW-

Anyone looking for information on physics would be better to turn to Hawking than me. Or you. Or SSDD.

The difference betweenus being that I am not self-obssessed or insecure enough to claim expertise on a field where I have only a basic knowledge.

That would depend on what they are looking for, wouldn't it? The guy thinks that any aliens that show up would destroy the solar system to mine it for resources.

 

[westwall]

Aah, the old "No I'm not you are" argument.
Ridiculous.

Yes, you are. You ascribe to we sceptics the very behavior that your side has exhibited for decades. Every weather "event' (you notice how nothing can be normal anymore?....that's from you clowns too) was evidence of global warming.

Enjoy the explosion....

You've made up your mind but you're wrong.
Which is exactly why I like to jump on idiots like skookzz...hxz..sn.ei..whatever.
Weather events in isolation prove nothing.

Don't try and tell me that self-proclaimed 'sceptics' don't point to every unusual snowfall as evidence that there is no such thing as GW...you know that would be false.

Just as I know that there's a difference between a sceptic and a denier...surely you know that there's a difference between a researched proponent and an unquestioning acolyte.

Sceptics have ALWAYS said that the "weather events" were nothing more than random variability. It is the warmists who have claimed every "weather event" is evidence of global warming.

Better get your targets correct.

 

[idb]

Yes, you are. You ascribe to we sceptics the very behavior that your side has exhibited for decades. Every weather "event' (you notice how nothing can be normal anymore?....that's from you clowns too) was evidence of global warming.

Enjoy the explosion....

You've made up your mind but you're wrong.
Which is exactly why I like to jump on idiots like skookzz...hxz..sn.ei..whatever.
Weather events in isolation prove nothing.

Don't try and tell me that self-proclaimed 'sceptics' don't point to every unusual snowfall as evidence that there is no such thing as GW...you know that would be false.

Just as I know that there's a difference between a sceptic and a denier...surely you know that there's a difference between a researched proponent and an unquestioning acolyte.

Sceptics have ALWAYS said that the "weather events" were nothing more than random variability. It is the warmists who have claimed every "weather event" is evidence of global warming.

Better get your targets correct.

Then you're clearly blinkered.
Did you not notice (forone example) the glee with which the Manitoba ice buildup was quoted in this forum as evidence against GW?

Sorry, but your partisanship is exposed.

 

[Saigon]

By my count there are 8 - 10 threads on the first 2 pages of the environment section which focus on "it is snowing in Russia - so no global warming" type nonsense.

There is 1 highlighting weather as proof of climate change.

It is alao interesting that none of our so well-informed sceptics here can bring themselves to call Skooks, Westwall, Gslack or any other of other Deniers on their shit.

Team loyalty outranks scientific truth.