The Anthropocene

[Crick]

Are you under the impression that has ever mattered to nature?

You are now using a definition of "nature" that does not match the one you've provided.

How many species have gone extinct before? It's like you think nature never changes or something.

I am wondering what you think will happen to the human race in the event of the mass extinction we're currently working on. Nothing?

 

[Crick]

Because I don't share the same pessimistic view of the future as you do. Because I believe the current temperatures are below normal for an interglacial period. Because previous interglacial periods did not result in mass extinctions and they were 2C warmer than today. Because a 1 to 2C increase in temperature is effectively imperceptible on a day to day basis and immaterial to survival for life. Because the AMOC will continue switch off and on like it has been doing millions years.

Take your pick.

Where did you get the idea that the sixth extinction is all about global warming? Humans began driving extinctions when they overhunted the megafauna of the North American continent upon crossing the Bering Straits land bridge over 13,000 years ago. Loss of habitat, overhunting, introduction of invasive species and introducing toxins to the environment. Humans have ended species in lots of different ways.

Can I assume you are saying that you don't believe a sixth mass extinction is taking place?

 

[ding]

You are now using a definition of "nature" that does not match the one you've provided.

I am wondering what you think will happen to the human race in the event of the mass extinction we're currently working on. Nothing?

Am I? I don't believe so. I think you are grasping at straws.

I think claims of mass extinction due to environmental changes are way overblown. We are a very adaptable species. I am wondering why you believe the human race is so fragile. You must be afraid of your own shadow.

 

[ding]

Where did you get the idea that the sixth extinction is all about global warming? Humans began driving extinctions when they overhunted the megafauna of the North American continent upon crossing the Bering Straits land bridge over 13,000 years ago. Loss of habitat, overhunting, introduction of invasive species and introducing toxins to the environment. Humans have ended species in lots of different ways.

Can I assume you are saying that you don't believe a sixth mass extinction is taking place?

Probably from you is where I got it.

I think people get paid money to spread fear and what they are spreading is working on you. If I were you I would worry more about WWIII starting than I would about mass extinctions.

 

[Crick]

Probably from you is where I got it.

No, you didn't. But, given the amount I have posted here about AGW it is not a crazy presumption to make. But it is not the case.

I think people get paid money to spread fear and what they are spreading is working on you. If I were you I would worry more about WWIII starting than I would about mass extinctions.

I think in the case of AGW, people are getting paid to create several false impressions among the public: that global warming is not settled science, that there are reasons to doubt it, that it is the work of alarmists who can safely be ignored, that it is the work of people just trying to get rich and virtually every other argument deniers have presented. That the lot of you continue to completely ignore the motivation that the fossil fuel industry has to feed you bum dope and instead conclude that the world's climate scientists are universally greedy liars, incompetents and thieves able to pull off a hoax that has lasted decades without getting caught is a painful admission as to the frailties of human reasoning.

 

[ding]

No, you didn't. But, given the amount I have posted here about AGW it is not a crazy presumption to make. But it is not the case.

That's on me then. I'm not arguing we shouldn't be good stewards. I'm arguing it doesn't matter what we argue. It's going to be what it's going to be and it will be skewed toward what's good for man. Which is exactly how Darwin says it will be. The only question will be what's good for man. And that will be a dogfight each and every time.

 

[ding]

I think in the case of AGW, people are getting paid to create several false impressions among the public: that global warming is not settled science, that there are reasons to doubt it, that it is the work of alarmists who can safely be ignored, that it is the work of people just trying to get rich and virtually every other argument deniers have presented. That the lot of you continue to completely ignore the motivation that the fossil fuel industry has to feed you bum dope and instead conclude that the world's climate scientists are universally greedy liars, incompetents and thieves able to pull off a hoax that has lasted decades without getting caught is a painful admission as to the frailties of human reasoning.

I'd be happy with a nice conversation around the history of earth's climate and the reasons for the history of earth's climate. With a special emphasis on the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Is that asking for too much from the climate community?

I'd also like to see them separate the radiative forcing component of CO2 from the feedback from the radiative forcing of CO2. Seems like a logical starting point for the GHG effect conversation.

 

[toobfreak]

all right tube, any other of these "non existent imaginary terms" made up by globalists that i can use to decipher that 1st paragraph? are you talking about the triassic period, the neolithic age or the dark aqes ?

Triassic period or the Dark Ages? To ask such a stupid question is to admit you wouldn't understand the answer. All other segments of Earth's history: Eons, Eras, Periods, Ages, etc., are all based upon the statigraphic evidence in the rocks, the geologic record. There is no evidence of any "anthropocene" in the geologic record--- it was created by man because of man, for man, out of the arrogance of man, because of our inherent homo-centric bias to elevate the importance of man.

The question to ask yourself is whether in 70 million years any future life on the planet will examine the stratigraphic record at that time and see any anthropocene in the earth record.

 

[Crick]

I'd be happy with a nice conversation around the history of earth's climate and the reasons for the history of earth's climate. With a special emphasis on the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Is that asking for too much from the climate community?

I'd also like to see them separate the radiative forcing component of CO2 from the feedback from the radiative forcing of CO2. Seems like a logical starting point for the GHG effect conversation.

Let's do the math. Total temperature change since 1750: 1.2C

Total change from net forcing shown above: 0.7C.

Feedback component: 0.5C

 

[ding]

View attachment 877821
Let's do the math. Total temperature change since 1750: 1.2C

Total change from net forcing shown above: 0.7C.

Feedback component: 0.5C

And in the year 2100 is projected to be what?

 

[Crick]

And in the year 2100 is projected to be what?

Pick your scenario and read the graph. Not the graph above.

I'm tired of looking things up in AR6 for people that are too lazy to do it themselves.

 

[Crick]

Am I? I don't believe so. I think you are grasping at straws.

I think claims of mass extinction due to environmental changes are way overblown. We are a very adaptable species. I am wondering why you believe the human race is so fragile. You must be afraid of your own shadow.

I have very consistently been talking about the extinction of OTHER species. Do you have any concerns for the extraordinarily high rate of extinctions at the present time?

 

[Crick]

DNA Tells All: The True Culprits Behind the Fall of Earth’s Largest Beasts

For years, scientists have debated whether humans or the climate caused the population of large mammals to decline dramatically over the past several thousand years. A new study from Aarhus University confirms that climate cannot be the explanation. About 100,000 years ago, the first modern human

scitechdaily.com

 

[Crick]

That's on me then. I'm not arguing we shouldn't be good stewards.

Good stewards of what? You've commented several times that you don't care about mass extinctions. So, what is it you think needs our stewardship?

I'm arguing it doesn't matter what we argue.

Then why do you argue anything?

It's going to be what it's going to be and it will be skewed toward what's good for man.

Why would that be? God?

Which is exactly how Darwin says it will be.

That is most assuredly not how Darwin says it will be.

The only question will be what's good for man. And that will be a dogfight each and every time.

So, again, you don't seem to care the slightest bit about other species. So what is it you think needs to be stewarded?

 

[Flash]

I think in the case of AGW, people are getting paid to create several false impressions among the public: that global warming is not settled science, .

Because it ain't settle science you dumb shit. It is a scam complete with false data, cherry picked data, revealed lies, computer modeling that doesn't work, unscientific methodology, worthless peer reviews among the scammers, predictions that don't come true and admittance of dishonesty by the Principle Scientists.

Since it is your religion you are blind to the scam. You would make a great Scientologists. Where the people heading the scam know it but the stupid followers are in denial about the scam.

 

[sparky]

Anthropogenics are like some moving target ,where no clear shot exists.

That the issue is completely shill makes it all the more evasive

~S~

 

[ding]

Parsing posts like this is asinine.

Good stewards of what? You've commented several times that you don't care about mass extinctions. So, what is it you think needs our stewardship?

Figure it out. It's not that complicated.

Then why do you argue anything?

I'm not. I just state the truth.

Why would that be? God?

Not directly, no, but indirectly, yes. Order comes from chaos. Good comes from bad. Truth is discovered. Everything works itself out.

That is most assuredly not how Darwin says it will be.

It is exactly how Darwin said it would be. You just want to play God.

So, again, you don't seem to care the slightest bit about other species. So what is it you think needs to be stewarded?

Because I'm not willing to play God? I'll leave that to you and your moral arguments.

 

[ding]

I have very consistently been talking about the extinction of OTHER species. Do you have any concerns for the extraordinarily high rate of extinctions at the present time?

I think it is being exaggerated. I don't consider it a major extinction event like the other events which were caused by planetary changes and were mass extinction events; asteroid, volcanos and major sea level changes. Man is not an event. Man is a part of nature. Extinctions are a normal part of evolution: they occur naturally and periodically over time. And man is part of that process. Man's evolution is at the expense of other species. How is that not Darwinian? Should man not further his species?

I'm waiting for you to make your moral argument?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I never said it was.

Rght, you implied it. And I corrected it.

 

[ding]

Rght, you implied it. And I corrected it.

No, I didn't imply it. Maybe you need to recalibrate your gaydar.