Secrets Of The Deep May Hold Clue To Ancient Global Warming

With fanatics who want us Western infidels dead, Bush & neocons with their apocalyptic and fascistic obsessions, a looming bird flu pandemic and death by global warming, I’m feeling a tad less optimistic about the future.

Global warming events 420 million years ago, comparable to those currently beginning to affect our planet, may have caused catastrophic environmental changes in an ancient ocean, threatening the life that existed in it.

Jointly supervised by the University of Leicester Department of Geology and the British Geological Survey (BGS), a postgraduate researcher based at Leicester and the BGS is to investigate exquisitely preserved fossil zooplankton known as graptolites, which may hold some clues to global warming events 420 million years ago.

  1. Greg says:

    AB CD: Thank you for providing a substantive point on the science to debate on. This is the way these arguments should be.

    A summary of that study is here. First point: they limited it to that period because that’s the period when satellite data was available. They didn’t feel other data sources wouldn’t have been consistent enough to provide a good analysis. Quote: “We deliberately limited this study to the satellite era because of the known biases before this period.”

    I would argue that some of the stories that came out about the report were posted as definitive because of sloppy reporting rather than an agenda on behalf of the scientists. They actually recognized its limitations quite readily. Quote: “…although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.”

    As for what the missing data might have said, quote: “There is evidence of a minimum of intense cyclones occurring in the 1970s, which could indicate that our observed trend toward more intense cyclones is a reflection of a long-period oscillation. However, the sustained increase over a period of 30 years in the proportion of category 4 and 5 hurricanes indicates that the related oscillation would have to be on a period substantially longer than that observed in previous studies.” So apparently they were aware of previous studies that suggested natural cycles, but that would still make this one unusually long.

    But the general theory isn’t based on one paper. Here’s another one from MIT that was published in Nature, the other major scientific journal. Granted, this one is only slightly better at 50 years, but it once again suggest warmer water surface temperatures lead to more intense hurricanes.

    Is it a slam dunk? No, it is not. But it suggests there could be a relationship between the two, and it’s consistent with modelling that suggests there is. Given the level of devistation it could potentially cause, and given that hurricanes are just one of the many possible drawbacks of global warming, isn’t it worth it to start addressing the issue? Do we have to wait until it’s so bad that no one could possibly deny it anymore?

    Part of the reluctance is an exaggerated idea of what impact it would have on the economy. Compare post 23 of what you think I want to 24 of what I actually do. This caricature of environmentalists is every bit as much fear mongering as some of the alarmist stories about the study. You want to throw out Kyoto? Fine. Throw out Kyoto. But that’s not an excuse to blow off the issue altogether and not even try to address it.

  2. Me says:

    I propose an experiment. Let’s kill everyone off everywhere and then see if the Earth begins to cool.

  3. Greg says:

    AB CD: How ironic that I just finish a long post that not only references and links to that study, and a second one as well, but also commends you on providing a substantive point, and I see that quip when I’m done. I’ve done my due diligence as I’ve just shown, now it’s your turn to both back up what you’re saying and try to debate like an adult again.

  4. Greg says:

    Smith: Yes, straw men, because you were pushing the environmentalist caricature that we need to shut everything down and/or have dramatic immediate cuts in everything. That we’d have rolling blackouts everywhere and massive unemployment. Can you find anything even hinting at something that extreme in any of my posts?

    By the way, who the hell is it that defines a scientist? And where are the polls that back up the claim “all scientists agree?”

    Credibility in my eyes is a major degree in a relevant field, better yet heading the relevant department at a respected research institution, and by far the most important, being published in one of the major scientific peer reviewed journals, particularly Science and Nature. They have very high standards and such papers are subjected to much scientific scrutiny, both before and after publication. You see, surviving scrutiny by other experts is worth far more than being able to make a point that sounds good to an average person.

    I’ll leave the research on your other points to other people. Normally you can rightfully claim that’s a cop out, but I’ve already did my research for the night for post 34, and only so much effort is warranted for I think I demonstrated enough.


Bad Behavior has blocked 7964 access attempts in the last 7 days.