backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by PaterPelligrin.. on Sep 2 at 3:41 PM


  (Source: Travelvivi)
But scientists say it did not contribute to global warming today

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientist, along with his team, recently used radiocarbon dating to trace carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere from the deep ocean at the end of the last ice age.

Radiocarbon dating employs the use of radioisotope carbon-14 to figure out the age of ancient and prehistoric carbonaceous materials. This process can be used on materials as old as 62,000 years old. 

Tom Guilderson, a scientist at the LLNL's Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry and an author of the study, found that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations corresponded with a decreased amount of carbon-14 relative to carbon-12 in the atmosphere. 

"This suggests that there was a release of very 'old' or low 14/12CO2 from the deep ocean to the atmosphere during the end of the last ice age," said Guilderson. He noted that CO2 release may increase the rate at which ice melts after an ice age. 

Ocean circulation regulates radiocarbon in the atmosphere, and in turn, this regulates the sequestration of carbon dioxide in the deep ocean by atmosphere-ocean carbon exchange. Around 110,000 to 10,000 years ago when the last ice age occurred, lower atmospheric carbon dioxide levels coincided with increased atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations, which have been "credited to great storage of CO2 in a poorly ventilated abyssal ocean." The circulation of the ocean was drastically different back then, and Guilderson admits that he and his team do not fully understand the manner in which carbon was stored in deep ocean at that time. 

The team dated two sediment cores from the subtropic South Pacific near New Zealand and the sub-Antarctic to be approximately 13,000 and 19,000 years old. Guilderson was able to determine when the large CO2 release occurred using the carbon-14 in the cores. Also, he was able to determine the ocean pathway by which it escaped. 

"In this case, the absence of a signal is telling us something important," said Guilderson. "Deeper waters substantially depleted in carbon-14 were drawn to the upper layers and this is the main source of the CO2 during deglaciation. Data suggests that the upwelling of this water occurred in the Southern Ocean, near Antarctica. In our cores off New Zealand, which lie in the path of waters which 'turn over' in the Southern Ocean, we don't find anomalously low carbon-14/12 ratios.

"This implies that either water which upwelled in the Southern Ocean, after 16,500 years ago, had a vigorous exchange with the atmosphere, allowing its 14C-clock to be reset, or the circulation was significantly different than what the current paradigm is. If the paradigm is wrong, then during the glacial and deglaciation, the North Pacific is much more important than we give it credit for."

This carbon dioxide release sped up the melting, but when asked about CO2's contribution to

global warming today, Guilderson said this release of CO2 from the last ice age "is not relevant." But he did mention that he has used radiocarbon dating on CO2 in the atmosphere today, and that isotopic signature shows that use of fossil fuels is what is causing global warming. 

The study was published in the August 26 edition of Nature



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Slow news day
By JimboK29 on 8/30/2010 8:03:04 AM , Rating: 5
These GW posts just get more and more ridiculous.




RE: Slow news day
By mdogs444 on 8/30/2010 8:36:32 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly. More doomsday hysteria and blaming the successful western world for something that no one can prove wrong for 1000 years in order to implement socialist global governance and spread wealth to poor countries. Its nothing more than that.


RE: Slow news day
By retrospooty on 8/30/2010 8:43:10 AM , Rating: 4
Ya, it seems like what passes for "science" these days is less and less evidence, and more pure conjecture. 2 whole core samples, lol. Any number of things could have artificially raised that # from that location, like a nearby volcano or a gassy buffalo herd ;)

Anyhow, still a good idea to be researching clean enrgy alternatives, and doing what we can to lower enrgy consumption. I makes sense economically, politically and 3rdly, environmentally. I am not saying we should make bad financial decisions for it, but moving in that direction in a responsible manor is a good thing.


RE: Slow news day
By LoweredExpectations on 8/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Slow news day
By FITCamaro on 8/30/2010 10:19:59 AM , Rating: 4
Maybe because our public school system would rather teach kids about cultural diversity and how to pass a test than about math and science. Kids who do well in life and grow up to be successful don't need welfare or to rely on the government. Can't have that now can we.


RE: Slow news day
By retrospooty on 8/30/2010 10:23:28 AM , Rating: 5
"Maybe because our public school system would rather teach kids about cultural diversity and how to pass a test than about math and science."

You cant blame that on the schools. They do teach math and science, and you know it.

the issue is alot of people are stupid and lazy. What we need to do is stop giving them handouts and force them to be productive in order to eat and feed their families.


RE: Slow news day
By mdogs444 on 8/30/2010 11:08:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You cant blame that on the schools. They do teach math and science, and you know it.

Sure - they're incorporating man-made Global Warming as fact into science classes and dismissing Regan's name completely from ending the Cold War.

They'd rather concentrate on teaching sex ed to children as early as 1st grade, focus on black & white incorporation, acceptance of LGBT, a the idea of a perfect social Utopia.

You know it, and I know. The influence of personal emotion and politics into our public school system has turned it into garbage.


RE: Slow news day
By retrospooty on 8/30/2010 12:42:16 PM , Rating: 3
uuuhhh... paranoid much?

You know, not every single issue is a launch point for your partisaned rants. Seriously? Reagen? LOL


RE: Slow news day
By vortmax2 on 8/30/2010 2:19:15 PM , Rating: 3
Sad thing is that the liberal long-term strategy is to control the schools so that the next-gen kids grow up with a leftist bent. This is frighteningly similar to the current strategy of Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah when it comes to indoctrinating the children in Lebanon and Gaza...


RE: Slow news day
By foolsgambit11 on 8/30/2010 2:50:58 PM , Rating: 5
Public schools have always been a battleground for the hearts and minds of the next generation. One of its founding principles is the ability to indoctrinate children to be 'good citizens'. The trouble is, while that sounds great in general terms, people can't really agree on what it means to be a good citizen.

To compare strategies as you did is, in and of itself, totally useless. That's like saying the Nazis used a shock and awe campaign, just like America did, therefore America is bad. Or that terrorists are fighting a holy war, and so did the Crusaders, therefore Christianity is bad. You have to explain why the tactic is wrong in and of itself, and then avow that your side won't ever use it, either. So no more Pledge of Allegiance in schools, because that's indoctrination, for instance.

Besides, when you says the liberal long-term strategy, you make them seem way more organized than they are.


RE: Slow news day
By VultureTX on 8/30/2010 10:24:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
btw, did you know that 20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth?


No 20% will tell you that if asked because considering what else you believe in, they figured you would fall for it.

Polling- a soft science ... at best.


RE: Slow news day
By retrospooty on 8/30/2010 11:08:58 AM , Rating: 5
I dunno... Have you been around this country? I would say that 20% of the people that I have met in my travels in the USA are definitely that stupid. IT scary how stupid some people are.

- just think how stupid the average person is... Now think, half of everyone is stupider than that guy. - George Carlin.


RE: Slow news day
By Denigrate on 8/30/2010 11:18:06 AM , Rating: 4
Just see the amount of people who buy the progressive agenda as being good for the average individual.


RE: Slow news day
By retrospooty on 8/30/2010 11:34:05 AM , Rating: 4
There are stupid people on both sides of the aisle. This 20% are a drain regardless of your, or their political views.


RE: Slow news day
By LoweredExpectations on 8/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Slow news day
By the3monkies on 8/30/2010 1:21:17 PM , Rating: 4
I'm a very wealthy guy - inherited most of my money - so naturally I'm a Republican. That's because the core concern of the powers behind my party has always been 'more money for me' - me, of course, meaning 'the mega rich'. Now we realize that the lower classes aren't going to get all pumped up to vote Republican if we come out and tell them we don't give a sh*t about anybody but the rich; so we keep the political spot-light on gay marriage, abortion, the Bible and that cute little Baby Jesus, freedom, guns, patriotism, and the uppity coloreds - all the things we've hoodwinked small-town America into believing are central to its well being.

Obviously, we don't give a rat's ass about any of these issues. My homes and townhouses are guarded and my kids go to exclusive prep schools where brain-dead nonsense like creationism is definitely not on the curriculum. But the end justifies the means, and if dumbing down the message is what it takes to get Joe Sixpack to vote the very candidates into office who work tirelessly to make it increasingly difficult for the average guy to have a decent life, so be it. (thumbs up smiley)

I mean, these people are hopeless anyway; remember this is a country where half the population thinks Jesus is coming back sometime in the next 50 years to smite the sinners and carry the righteous white folk off to heaven. The poor should consider themselves lucky to get the trickle-down slops we toss their way. Isn't the fact they're not rich proof that they're inferior?

So while our hired-guns in Congress work to lower income taxes for the top tenth of a percent of Americans who already own everything, strive to do away with odious inheritance taxes, and fight raising the minimum wage for the coloreds and white trash - we need guys like Glenn and Rush to blow smoke in the eyes of the dumb and gullible so that John Q doesn't catch on that he's being butt-f****d by the very people he votes for.

Thank Jesus I'm a billionaire!


RE: Slow news day
By SPOOFE on 8/30/2010 3:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
remember this is a country where half the population thinks Jesus is coming back sometime in the next 50 years to smite the sinners and carry the righteous white folk off to heaven.

Uh-huh, because non-white folk have no religious affiliation whatsoever. Hey, did you know Proposition 8 passed in California thanks to Latinos?

quote:
The poor should consider themselves lucky to get the trickle-down slops we toss their way. Isn't the fact they're not rich proof that they're inferior?

80% of the millionaires in this country are first-generation rich. The fact is that there is NO magic ceiling preventing virtually anyone from "making it"... it is simply a matter of most people being incapable of doing it.


RE: Slow news day
By mcnabney on 8/30/2010 7:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
That 80% stat is highly skewed due to real estate impacts, rapid population growth in the 20th century, and most importantly - inflation. If I sold my house and liquidated all of my assets I would probably be a millionaire too. It really isn't that much money.


RE: Slow news day
By zozzlhandler on 8/30/2010 5:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
And many may be shocked to discover that 50% of Americans are below average...


RE: Slow news day
By PaterPelligrino on 8/30/2010 10:50:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
in order to implement socialist global governance and spread wealth to poor countries


You couldn't invent stuff like this. Are you a liberal troll trying to make AGW-deniers look stupid? Because you just confirm every dismissive liberal caricature of dumb-f**k, Fox drones when you come out with garbage like that. There may be intelligent rebuttals to the AGW hypothesis, but claiming it's a global socialist conspiracy to give away money to poor 3rd-world countries isn't it.


RE: Slow news day
By mdogs444 on 8/30/2010 11:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You couldn't invent stuff like this.

You're right, I couldn't.
quote:
There may be intelligent rebuttals to the AGW hypothesis, but claiming it's a global socialist conspiracy to give away money to poor 3rd-world countries isn't it.

You may just want to look up and read the proposed Copenhagen treaties. Because that's EXACTLY what they are designed to do...

1. Create a global governance scheme to oversee every countries energy use and control it

2. Create huge tax schemes on the "rich"/"developed" nations - excluding China and India - and take that tax money and give it away to 3rd world and developing countries to the tune of $100B/yr

3. Redistribution of wealth (taxing rich, subsidizing poor) by force is just that, Socialist.

So where have I gone wrong?


RE: Slow news day
By PaterPelligrino on 8/30/2010 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So where have I gone wrong?


You go wrong when you claim that the reason for the very existence of the AGW hypothesis is to carry out this secret socialist agenda.

Look, it's possible to have an intelligent discussion about global warming, but to dismiss it all from the get-go because you think it's nothing but a socialist conspiracy to destroy America, that opens you up to no end of ridicule.

It's even less convincing than the claim that almost every climate scientist in the world is in league to dupe the public.

Once you go conspiracy, the only people who are going to take you seriously are other conspiracy nutters - everybody is just going to shake their heads and look for saner company.


RE: Slow news day
By mdogs444 on 8/30/2010 11:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry Pater -

But when the "solution" to every problem that the left encounters starts with the word "Tax" or "Control" - then I have no interest in believing whatever they claim the problem to be.


RE: Slow news day
By PaterPelligrino on 8/30/2010 2:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when the "solution" to every problem that the left encounters starts with the word "Tax" or "Control" - then I have no interest in believing whatever they claim the problem to be.


Just assuming for a moment that the global warming people are correct, how would no-tax (utilize no financial resources) and no-control (do nothing) bring about a solution?


RE: Slow news day
By mdogs444 on 8/30/2010 3:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ok...lets ASSUME that its real. And that the people pushing the agenda truly believed in it, right?

If so, then Al Gore himself would be conserving energy, not flying all over the earth using 20x as much energy as an average family of 4 and telling everyone else to conserve. He wouldn't be buying me expensive coast line property while telling everyone else the coasts are going to disappear. Pelosi would not be flying home on a 747 every weekend with 3-4 people. And the liberal politicians wouldn't be flying entire groups of staffers to Copenhagen for the meetings when they don't even have a say in whats going on. Hell, even Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is making Taxi companies buy hybrids, banning certain types of bags, and taxing everything in sight for the sake of a "cleaner planet" got busted because he rides around in a full sized 15MPG Tahoe fleet of several vehicles, which idle for hours while he sits in meetings and blowing smoke up peoples asses for publicity.

Its a tax and control scheme - being pushed by those who are in control, to gain even more control, and get more money to spend on what they see is the perfect world for everyone else to have it live by.

Now, if it was TRULY an emergency based on facts, then people would be inclined to do things on their own. If oil was REALLY running out, the price would be double or triple what it really is based on a limited amount of supply and ever increasing demand, and alternatives would be cheaper or competitively priced without any subsidies based on competition and supply/demand. If the pollution was REALLY that bad, then people in these communities would be revolting themselves...we wouldn't need mobs from the SEIU to be protesting in our neighborhoods while none of them even live there.

The problem is - that people aren't buying the doomsday hysteria after the scientists are caught lying and pushing knowingly false extremist positions on purpose, the politicians are caught in corrupt profiteering schemes, and that the unions stand to benefit from government contracts for the "green" agenda.


RE: Slow news day
By PaterPelligrino on 8/30/2010 4:22:34 PM , Rating: 3
So Al's a self-aggrandizing hypocrite. Could be he's just taking advantage of the AGW thing to advance his own agenda, that doesn't discredit the science behind global warming. If you want, ditto for Nancy Pelosi.

quote:
Its a tax and control scheme - being pushed by those who are in control


It's the rich who are in control, and by and large these people aren't into destroying capitalism and giving away money to Africans just to advance socialist agendas - and please note that I am not referring to humanitarian's who disperse their own money like Gates and Buffett.

quote:
Now, if it was TRULY an emergency based on facts, then people would be inclined to do things on their own.


The devil of AGW - if it is correct - is that the damage is to come. People are simply not capable of altering their behavior because of some future, hypothetical threat. Even if AGW were to become incontrovertible, and the damage visible, I fully expect that the vast majority of people will stubbornly resist making any changes whatsoever in their daily lives.

I have no idea whether or not the oil supply is diminishing - there seems to be some controversy on that point. Certainly it's true that we have virtually inexhaustible supplies of cheap coal. But price really isn't the issue here. The question is should we be relying on these carbon-intensive, and polluting resources for our energy needs. Even if AGW is wrong, there are plently of good reasons to move to cleaner energy.

If it is agreed that we should be encouraging alternative energy sources, it's hard to see how that could happen without some kind of price-control coercion.

And about pollution: the reason pollution in our cities is a lot better than it was 20-30 years ago is because the government has coerced industry to clean up it's act - something that never would have happened had corporations been allowed to always chose what was best for their bottom line. Think of how Detroit fought against catalytic converters, coal-fired power plants against laws requiring them to scrub sulfur dioxide from coal exhaust. Are you old enough to remember when the Love River caught fire? The idea that industry will always act in the public good is naive. I've read several articles lately on deteriorating water quality in the US and how industry is fighting tooth and nail to escape EPA control. Governments do have a legitimate right to set social policy.

quote:
The problem is - that people aren't buying the doomsday hysteria after the scientists are caught lying and pushing knowingly false extremist positions on purpose, the politicians are caught in corrupt profiteering schemes, and that the unions stand to benefit from government contracts for the "green" agenda.


Yah, that is a problem, and I think it'll take a huge AGW-related catastrophe before people even begin to take global warming seriously. So no catastrophe, nothing for the AGW-deniers to worry about.

However, most of the money pouring into the AGW debate is coming from vested interests intent on protecting their profits. Yesterday, I read an interesting article about the oil-wealth Koch brothers (3rd richest individuals in the States). Not only are they the biggest contributors to the Tea Party movement, they've devoted millions to fighting AGW. Ditto with all the oil and coal companies. The truth is there is serious money on both sides of the issue.


RE: Slow news day
By Ammohunt on 8/30/2010 2:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
Actually he is spot on about AGW being a Socialist movement becasue the only solution they have proposed to stop AGW is to ban Capitalism outright in Rich Western countries not the massive polluting developing countries just now going through industrialization. This implies class distinction i.e. Rich developed countires can afford to pollute less so that poor developing countires can pollute more; classic socialist constructs. Couple that with the fact that there is no other way to sell Socialism to thinking individuals without creating some type of crysis that affects everyone. Historically (Silent Spring then Acid Rain etc..)this is what it always has been about, a means to destroy the EVIL corporations! Europeans have always been the most gullable and swallow the propaganda they see on their state run media outlets like so many cheap sleeping pills.


RE: Slow news day
By PaterPelligrino on 8/30/2010 3:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious. Who exactly are these socialist conspirators who thought up the AGW hoax in order to "ban capitalism outright in rich western countries"? Are these the same Commies who are putting fluoride into our drinking water to pollute our precious bodily fluids.


RE: Slow news day
By mdogs444 on 8/30/2010 3:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
You really need to read up on the subject if you have this many questions. I'll give you a hint - it was started by the United Nations in 1988 with the nudge from a European politician who publicly stated that we needed a way to make the UN the new global government of all countries.


RE: Slow news day
By PaterPelligrino on 8/31/2010 1:12:06 AM , Rating: 2
And this is what passes for intelligent dialogue in the United States: two camps convinced that the other side is stupid and evil.

The left thinks conservatives are all small-town, know-nothing racists, who barely made it out of high school, have never been more than 20 miles from where they were born, and haven't a thought in their heads that wasn't put there by Fox News. For a conservative, if it wasn't invented in America and isn't written in English, it can't be trusted. Liberals see simple-minded, mean-spirited dupes who have been completely hoodwinked by the rich into supporting policies that benefit only the rich. It sees Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as just another iteration of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye. It sees a crowd of mindless and scared sheep just one rabble rouser away from picking up their torches and marching off to burn the heathens and the commies to the ground. Most of all, it sees people too dumb to know what's good for them. Liberals think that if a conservative would just read the right books and watch The Daily Show he'd come round to the liberal point of view.

The right thinks liberals are all closet-commies who want to destroy capitalism and give away all our wealth to the undeserving poor. It sees people who hate god and hate America. It sees people who want government to control everything. Conservatives think liberals don't want to have to work for a living, that they want to sit around all day in coffee shops sipping espresso, reading the New York Times, and telling each other how much better life would be if they only lived in Paris. They see a vast conspiracy of European socialists - Jews, yes we know they're all Jews, or even worse French! - who created the World Bank and the UN to subvert freedom-loving, god-fearing Americans who just want to be left alone and make their way in this world by the honest sweat of their brows. It thinks all problems are created by government, that if the environmentalists and tax-and-spenders would just stop harassing people, all of life's problems would go away. It thinks America is being dragged down the wrong path by liberal do-gooders.

Most people really do look at the world as a Dr Strangelove battle between good and evil. How is this any different than a place like Pakistan where everything that goes wrong in life is automatically assumed to be the result of a CIA conspiracy? Life isn't a battle between good and evil, it's a struggle between competing views of the good.


RE: Slow news day
By Ammohunt on 9/1/2010 2:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly, its about those that are hyper informed and those that are not. Most people judge others by their actions and can easily distill motivations from an established pattern of said actions. Its much easier to figure out what Leftists are about since after they are confortable enough to feel they will come out on top openely discuss their motivations and brag about it every chance they get. Its not rocket science its simple observation coupled with a basic yet accute understanding of human nature.


RE: Slow news day
By PaterPelligrino on 9/2/2010 12:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Let me see if I follow you here.

You're saying that conservatives like yourself, who claim that AGW was thought up by the left "to ban Capitalism outright in Rich Western countries", are "hyper-informed", while your liberal opponents don't share your grasp of the issues.

Then in the 2nd sentence you state that because liberals are confident of the correctness of their position, and certain that they'll prevail in the end, they openly admit what they're after, and therefore it's easy to figure out what they want - which is, as you previously stated, the "outright banning of capitalism in the rich West".

Have I got that right?

Odd, though, that I've never heard an AGW proponent admit to wanting to ban capitalism in the West, let alone brag about it, but let's not quibble about details.

All in all, a very convincing argument you have there. I feel I should apologize. I clearly did you a disservice when I lumped you in with all those other conservatives who distort and misrepresent your opponents' positions.

It's not often that one encounters a guy with such an "acute understanding of human nature". Hats off to you bro.


RE: Slow news day
By Ammohunt on 9/2/2010 2:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
Reading comprehension not one of your strong points I see. Sorry i don’t have the patience to day to dumb it all down for you rest assured it will all come clear to you eventually.


RE: Slow news day
By PaterPelligrino on 9/2/2010 3:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
rest assured it will all come clear to you eventually.


I wouldn't count on it Ammohunt; after all, not everyone possesses your "hyper-informed" knowledge of the issues, and "acute understanding of human nature".


RE: Slow news day
By Jyrioffinland on 8/30/2010 10:37:52 AM , Rating: 2
And what exactly is YOUR scientific competence that your evaluation is based on?


RE: Slow news day
By mdogs444 on 8/30/2010 11:05:22 AM , Rating: 2
Common Sense . I know its fairly absent in today's culture, but maybe it'll rub off on you.


RE: Slow news day
By Jyrioffinland on 8/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Slow news day
By mdogs444 on 8/30/2010 11:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
At the time, it probably was common sense from certain peoples perspectives that slavery was good for the country. Financially for slave owners, they were probably right. Emotionally and morally it was wrong - that many years ago life was much different.

In a sense, this is polar opposite. Emotionally and morally, the environmental movement is trying to get back to back global warming - not by the scientific facts or lack there of, but out of the visuals of polar bears, dying animals, oil covered birds, etc. When shown the hockey stick graph and all of its controversial methods and the CRU emails - actual proven facts that people can see for themselves - the movement wouldn't go anywhere.

So in the end - common sense to you is believing in global warming - which as you just stated, is just another name for guessing.


RE: Slow news day
By Jyrioffinland on 8/30/2010 8:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
Let me give you another explanation so maybe you understand what I try to say.

Suddenly you get a major headache. What do you do?

Common sense tells a layman to take an aspirin or two and it should go away.

For someone with knowledge of medicine it's a sign you may have a brain hemorrhage and aspirin may cause you bleed to death. Skip aspirin, go to ER.

So you need also knowledge, not just common sense, to understand subjects like climate change or global warming.

quote:
common sense to you is believing in global warming


Whoa! Hold your horses, cowboy! Where did I say I believe in global warming? What do you even mean by that?

I don't "believe in global warming". I know some facts and I know there's a lot we don't know yet.

Only a fool would claim the globe has not warmed any in the last few decades. Also, only a fool would claim we're predestined to end up like burgers on a BBQ grill.

Only a fool would claim the climate is static, never-changing. Only a fool would claim humans have either absolutely none or all to do with the recent changes.

Only a fool would claim we are now capable of predicting certainly how it will change in the future. Only a fool would claim we never will.

I know the climate+oceans+humans-equation is basically a chaotic (non-linear) system and theoretically it can go any way from now on.

So only a fool would NOT acknowledge the possibility --- how ever small it may be --- that things may go wrong, maybe even horribly wrong.

There IS a slight chance this globe of ours is not going to be able to keep its cool endlessly, given what we throw at it. It's only good proactive thinking to take into account all possible scenarios when planning the future for us.

Moreover, personally I get frustrated with people who have no understanding whatsoever of science yet they keep disparaging perfectly legit scientists and research results.

It feels like if someone came up a new fine drug for cancer and everybody would just be dissing the scientist and some zealots would give advice for cancer patients to forget the drug but pray instead.

And all the rushlimbaughs on the AM hate radio would air special shows on how this anti-American God-hating commy-loving corrupted scientist actually did it just to make another top-seller for the baby-blood-drinking drug company big shots.


RE: Slow news day
By SPOOFE on 8/30/2010 3:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Common sense" has been used to justify, e.g., slavery. Without proper knowledge (i.e. science) it's just another name for guessing.

But WITH proper knowledge, it makes your "slavery" analogy look absolutely idiotic.


RE: Slow news day
By Jyrioffinland on 8/31/2010 4:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But WITH proper knowledge, it makes your "slavery" analogy look absolutely idiotic


Yeah, right! And withOUT any rationale, your comment sounds absolutely idiotic.

Go back to your comic books, please.


just read
By seraphim1982 on 8/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: just read
By Denigrate on 8/30/2010 10:03:01 AM , Rating: 2
Legit data? Where? This is supposition combined with massive guess work. The article states the scientists realy don't understand how the ocean currents worked at that time, or how much carbon may have been stored in deep ocean.


RE: just read
By FITCamaro on 8/30/2010 10:22:10 AM , Rating: 3
+1

There is nothing there to base a legitimate hypothesis on. It's "well this is what we think happened and you can't prove us wrong".


RE: just read
By kattanna on 8/30/2010 10:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science...

you might find that interesting. its an engineers view of AGW done by burt rutan, of scaled composites fame.


RE: just read
By Jyrioffinland on 8/30/2010 10:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations corresponded with a decreased amount of carbon-14 relative to carbon-12 in the atmosphere.


That sounds a whole lot like a piece of legit data to me.


RE: just read
By Denigrate on 8/30/2010 11:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
What did they base it on? They jump in a time machine and check the atmosphere levels? The amount of guess work that is now ordained as science is frightening.


RE: just read
By Jyrioffinland on 8/30/2010 11:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
According to the article, they did something very mysterious called "measuring".

quote:
The team dated two sediment cores from the subtropic South Pacific near New Zealand and the sub-Antarctic to be approximately 13,000 and 19,000 years old. Guilderson was able to determine when the large CO2 release occurred using the carbon-14 in the cores.


What is there so difficult to understand? If it's beyond you, maybe you'll be able to understand it once you've finished school.


RE: just read
By kattanna on 8/30/2010 12:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The team dated two sediment cores


WOW a whole 2 cores, and that tells them how the entire world was?

come on, even today region to region can have varying levels, but supposedly in the past everywhere was equal?


RE: just read
By Jyrioffinland on 8/31/2010 4:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
WOW a whole 2 cores, and that tells them how the entire world was?


First off, if you think of the oceans, they are in constant move and gases do get distributed pretty evenly in the long run so these kind of core samples are not 'local' in nature.

Secondly, the sea bed sediments come about extremely slowly (from the human perspective) so the time scale will also even out short-lived peaks and dips.


This just in...
By klstay on 8/30/2010 8:47:41 AM , Rating: 5
Scientists at MIT using the latest "time element matrix lens" officially dubbed the KRSTL-BII have detected a massive increase in world gold around 420BC centered around Wales. They state this "may" have been due to alchemical research being done at the time.




RE: This just in...
By Jyrioffinland on 8/30/2010 10:56:27 AM , Rating: 1
...and if you are a pot-smoking high school drop-out, that "may" make sense.


The agenda...
By mkrech on 8/30/2010 11:09:19 AM , Rating: 4
she wrote that whole article just so she could get this in there:
quote:
fossil fuels is what is causing global warming.


Clear unbiased agenda.
/sarcasm




RE: The agenda...
By mkrech on 8/30/2010 12:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
Tom Guilderson actual quote from the LLNL article - https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/... which is a little less blatant at spinning the global warming BS

quote:
“We can radiocarbon date the CO2 in the atmosphere now and what we’ve found is that the isotopic signature indicates that it is really due to the use of fossil fuels,” he said.

I'd like to read the report published in Nature, but I am not going to pay to do so. Especially since I am sure no real evidence will be presented to make the link.

Paraphrasing the scientific study to meet a specific result is typical of the climate change zealots. This is just a tactic to meet an end. Accept what is insinuated or financially support the movement just to learn what you already know.


oops
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 8/30/2010 8:46:11 AM , Rating: 2
Oops, you're supposed to say climate change and not global warming...you know just in case.




By shikigamild on 8/30/2010 11:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
But scientists say it did not contribute to global stupidity today




Or is it the other way around
By wookie1 on 8/30/2010 12:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
How is the author so certain that the rising temperatures at the end of the ice age didn't come first, reducing the solubility of CO2 in oceans, and releasing more CO2 into the atmoshpere? Other sources of releasing trapped CO2 also seem to depend on the temperature increasing first, like permafrost, etc. Shouldn't this have caused some runaway effect if that hypothesis were feasible? Instead, there were a couple of cold periods that happened between the end of the ice age and the present, such as the younger dryas and the "little ice age". I think that there are others. But, I guess that SUV's must now be overriding all other natural processes and pushing us into the runaway that nature couldn't.




sad
By Randomblame on 8/30/2010 5:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
Have you guys seen Idiocracy? Recently I feel like I'm the only smart person in a world full of morons. These articles are mostly to blame. How do you radio carbon date co2 in the atmosphere? Where do you get the sample? How do you draw any conclusions from a 1:1 trillion trillion sample? It would be worse than asking one person who they voted for and using that as the poll result for a presidential election.

I just wish that time machine worked, oh well I think I'm gonna go get a latte




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki