PDA

View Full Version : Science Saturday: Mass Extinctions


Bloggingheads
12-15-2007, 12:28 PM

bjkeefe
12-15-2007, 01:51 PM
Absolutely fascinating diavlog! Probably the most intriguing thought: dinosaur bones on the moon. Can you imagine if the Apollo astronauts had brought back rocks with bits of dinosaur bones embedded in them, before we had impact theory?

One big unanswered question, which I hope Carl will see and answer (since he didn't get a chance to ask Peter about it): After the hydrogen sulfide bloom, what brought the atmosphere back to levels more amenable to our kind of life? Was in microbes or plants that could absorb it (and maybe exhale oxygen)? Or was it some other mechanism?

Can't wait for Round 2: The Aliens. Maybe make next week's "Science Saturday" a double feature? With the opening show being John & George's Birds vs. Cats: This Time It's Serious?

Wolfgangus
12-15-2007, 03:37 PM
I love the Zimmer interviews; this one is interesting too.
Dino bones on the moon means dino bones past the moon, flying through space and orbiting the sun. Cool.

If we are in for a 4.5 foot rise in sea level even if we stop now, does that mean like a 20 foot rise in a more realistic future, in which China, India and everybody else basically continues to grow energy consumption with no brake?

I am glad to hear it probably takes thousands of years to stop ocean circulation, but I wonder what impact a 20 foot rise in sea level would have on us. Doesn't that put LA and SF and Miami and NYC under water? Doesn't it shrink the Hawaiian islands by about 90%? I don't think 20 foot dikes will protect us, it is the entire coast, after all. Which means all the good sand beaches are gone. I really liked those things.

piscivorous
12-15-2007, 03:46 PM
From a recent article in Canadian Free Press http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/963

“Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth’s climate was “ultimately futile.”

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, released an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN’s so-called “solutions.”

“In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,’ significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming,” the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: “Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.” (http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html) - For a detailed analysis of how “consensus” has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called “Consensus” On Global Warming - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3 ]

ohcomeon
12-15-2007, 03:54 PM
The ending of this is fantastic. Might as well start drinking early today.

ohcomeon
12-15-2007, 06:14 PM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=97Senator

Senator Inhofe believes that the scientists who believe in global warming are like Nazis. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/24/inhofe-third-reich/

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/inhofe-gay-marriage/
On another interesting note, Senator Inhofe also has never had a homosexual relative in the entire history of his family.

piscivorous
12-15-2007, 06:21 PM
I'm glad that you can provide plenty of personal attacks on the Senator yet say nothing in reply to the 100 some Scientists that signed the letter. I guess this says a lot about the level of debate allowed on this subject.

Wonderment
12-15-2007, 06:32 PM
I love the Zimmer interviews; this one is interesting too.

Yes, Carl does a great job. And I love to learn about stuff that happened 50,000,000 years ago, 49,000,000 years before the neighborhood got ruined by hominids.

Politically, I thought it was fascinating when Carl asked the $$$ question and Dr. Ward told the anecdote of the nuclear bomb establishment looking to asteroid-nudging as a smart career move.

Brings up another danger of the military-industrial-congressional complex that Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address to the nation. The defense biz has so many self-perpetuating mechanisms that it's next to impossible to pull the plug. This asteroid-nuking maneuver was quite benign and maybe even beneficial, but still more evidence of how hard it is to separate science from capitalism, lobbying and corrupt politics.

charlie
12-15-2007, 08:09 PM
I don't think 20 foot dikes will protect us, it is the entire coast, after all. Which means all the good sand beaches are gone. I really liked those things.

No, they just move a half-mile inland. Beaches are caused by sand-bearing currents hitting the coast. They already move around plenty due to winter storms, and ever increasing development of the shoreline.

InJapan
12-15-2007, 08:41 PM
Re: piscivorous

The problem with your plea ( to address the 100 scientists) is that you are wanting to promote a fallacy - that of trusting an expert. Because you have "100" "scientists" that sign a letter means something to you, but to me all it means is that somebody with an activist issue persuaded 100 people to attach their names to a letter.

The real earth sciences should be done differently. If those 100 are wanting to propose alternate models of earth changes, then they should write articles to submit to the peer reviewed journals and defend their ideas.

piscivorous
12-15-2007, 08:57 PM
Maybe you should read the first comment I left at the start and you would have noticed this particular sentence in the first quote “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.” and then you might be able to add something constructive to the mix.

Wolfgangus
12-16-2007, 12:45 AM
Well, that presents something of a paradox for you; because there is a boxcar more of peer-reviewed research that suggests the opposite. So if you believe in peer-reviewed research, your opposition stance is illogical. If you believe in the weight of scientific opinion, then 98% of climate scientists are on the opposite side. Which suggests you are just cherry-picking the few scientists and peer-reviewed papers that support your pre-existing view.

Wolfgangus
12-16-2007, 12:47 AM
Hm, maybe so. I am pretty ignorant on the subject of beach dynamics. Still I have walked a fair number of mud and gravel beaches in my travels, so why don't those have sand?

DenvilleSteve
12-16-2007, 12:57 AM
Maybe you should read the first comment I left at the start and you would have noticed this particular sentence in the first quote “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.” and then you might be able to add something constructive to the mix.

I dont see the harm in letting democrats have their way on GW. We should know within 5 to 10 years whether the earth is warming from human activity. Only press for market instead of government solutions. For example, raise the gas tax on vehicles with low miles per gallon ratings. Remove the import restrictions on South American ethanol. Incentivize the creation of emissions control systems by requiring the utilities to use those systems as the technology becomes available and cost effective.

piscivorous
12-16-2007, 01:07 AM
It has to do with the underlying geology sea bed of the littoral waters. Here in south Florida the beaches wax and wane with the seasons due to the impact of the gulf stream and prevailing wind patterns.

piscivorous
12-16-2007, 01:19 AM
I'm not real fond of religions whether they are based on an omnipotent being or indomitable computer models. I don't like the tactics of fear they use to pedal their scriptures of doom nor the hypocrisy the exhibit as the jet around calling for sacrifice. Other than that I guess I should cut them some slack. Yea right!

piscivorous
12-16-2007, 01:24 AM
And you have surveyed them all to come out with this 98% concurrence right?

Wolfgangus
12-16-2007, 01:29 AM
Not I, but the survey has been done and published, I read it months ago and I believed it. In fact it said that agreement was even higher among climatologists, and the scientists that disbelieved in human caused global warming were overwhelmingly NOT climatologists. So, let's see what disciplines these 100 signing scientists are. Mathematicians? Sociologists? Research Dermatologists?

Wolfgangus
12-16-2007, 01:36 AM
Isn't your disbelief just as much of a religion? Climatologists have a ton of evidence the globe is warming, and a ton of evidence that CO2 is complicit in that, and a ton of evidence that the CO2 is rising due to human industry. Your disbelief in all this evidence, with scant evidence on your own side, is a bigger leap of raw faith than it is reason.

As usual, you accuse others of the crimes you commit, and then damn them to hell in furious righteousness. Just like a gay Republican politician.

piscivorous
12-16-2007, 01:42 AM
Actually if you go to the article and scroll down about halfway the signatories are all listed with their degrees and positions they hold. But I guess that even this trivial effort of seeing the other side is blasphemous to you true believers.

piscivorous
12-16-2007, 01:44 AM
Just like a gay Republican politician. Ohhh isn't that snappy.

Wolfgangus
12-16-2007, 01:52 AM
Pretty much so, I admit. I don't waste a lot of time reading political manifestos disguised as science; I have stacks of papers that represent real science to read.

piscivorous
12-16-2007, 02:08 AM
What is the IPCC report that is so quoted in the press. It is a summary written by a political organization whose very existence depends on the the presence of anthropogenic global warming.

DenvilleSteve
12-16-2007, 09:33 AM
Isn't your disbelief just as much of a religion? Climatologists have a ton of evidence the globe is warming, and a ton of evidence that CO2 is complicit in that, and a ton of evidence that the CO2 is rising due to human industry.

then the next few years will be the warmest on record, correct? China and India are the principle drivers of the CO2 bloom and not much can be done until the affects impact them directly.

mightly cold at the US military outpost in Greenland today
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/BGTL.html

piscivorous
12-16-2007, 10:54 AM
Dihydro-oxide is the most devistating greenhouse gas yet we hear no talk of trying to ban it's excessive usage.

AemJeff
12-16-2007, 09:11 PM
Wow. I am impressed. Piscky managed to find the dumbest, most transparently partisan, lonely little article in a tin-foil hat publication (http://canadafreepress.com/) (the top headline (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/980) in the current issue ties HRC fund-raisers to terrorist groups) attempting to publicize a whinging press release (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401) by a transparently (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41) corrupt (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute) source of GW misinformation (http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/ExxonSecrets2006-1.pdf). The fact that a small number of working scientists are willing to hitch their wagons to this discredited partisan hackery (http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1229/heartland-institute-bankrolls-dishonest) does not redeem it.

piscivorous
12-16-2007, 09:26 PM
The fact of where it was published discredits the fact of the actual occurrence and the credibility of those scientists that signed this letter, I see the logic in that. I guess now we should play name that fallacy right?

garbagecowboy
12-16-2007, 09:28 PM
Not I, but the survey has been done and published, I read it months ago and I believed it. In fact it said that agreement was even higher among climatologists, and the scientists that disbelieved in human caused global warming were overwhelmingly NOT climatologists. So, let's see what disciplines these 100 signing scientists are. Mathematicians? Sociologists? Research Dermatologists?

Hey is that some sort of knock on research dermatologists?

Thems fightin' words, my friend.

Wolfgangus
12-17-2007, 12:51 AM
Put the gloves down, GC! No knock on research dermatologists or mathematicians or sociologists intended. They are my favorite scientists! It is a knock on jokers pretending that any scientist is of equal worth on any and all subjects, and the fact that you can get 100 scientists to sign some petition doesn't mean a thing if they aren't publishing experts (or at least working on research with publishing experts) in the topic at hand, which to a first approximation is how I would determine whether a signature has weight or is just window dressing. I've mentioned my sister is a sociologist before, but she would have no business endorsing or condemning any paper on climate change. She studies spousal abuse and poverty and teenage pregnancy; last I heard her position on global warming was that she sure liked polar bears and (living in Florida) disliked hurricanes.

Happy Hominid
12-18-2007, 03:25 PM
Brendan, is it ME, or was this maybe the best Science Saturday ever? Of course, by "ever" I would have to mean in the 8 months I've been coming to bhTV.

The question I would put to Prof. Ward is - could a large impact have perhaps triggered the warming that he sees as the primary culprit in mass extinctions? At least for the Permian Extinction...

Fascinating topic and Ward really knows his stuff and communicates it so well to a general audience.

Good job, Carl.

jummy
12-18-2007, 06:30 PM
so, in summary...

the official conspiracy theory of mass dinosaur extinction is a politcal lie which obscures the actual cause: global warming. as bush pursues a war on science designed to usher in a new global warming (which will wipe out all but those with the wealth to equip themselves to avoid the poisoned atmosphere) the "comet impact" theory is nurtured by cold-war leftovers of the military industrial complex to serve as a convenient "reichstag fire" pretext to nuke iran.

obviously there's some humor in that summary, but i could easily see this diavlog restated similarly at huffpo or dkos, and progressives are only ever half-joking when they write such things. these are after all, the people who believe that bush made hurricane katrina form over the ocean and directed it against new orleans using HARRP because new orleans was "too real, too authentic" and filled with poor black people who vote democrat, and whom bush therefore deternined to "ethnnicly cleanse", in barney frank's actual words. i mean, you actually threw out a scenareo in which cheney nukes iran because mccarthy-era paranoids are keeping nukes around to blow up "comets".

at this point, you may as well close the circle and blame bush for the dinosaur extinction. but then, "hyperbole does no one any good".

bjkeefe
12-18-2007, 07:14 PM
Happy:

Brendan, is it ME, or was this maybe the best Science Saturday ever?

Certainly on anybody's short list, I would think.

The question I would put to Prof. Ward is - could a large impact have perhaps triggered the warming that he sees as the primary culprit in mass extinctions?

I thought I remembered this as something he alluded to (short answer:no), so I took a quick look trying to find the right point in the diavlog. Best I could do was this segment (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7431?in=00:45:45&out=00:48:05). This occurs shortly after he expressed a new-found skepticism for impacts causing every mass extinction. The thing is, however, he seems to start with global warming as the eventual "kill mechanism" without saying what caused the global warming. So, I'd like to hear the answer to your question, too.

HugoPottisch
12-20-2007, 04:22 AM
This could have been a great discussion... if we had only discussed how evolution and "species" work. We could have explained why that you do not need a meteoroid or a certain gas for mass-extinction to happen...

We are experiencing a big-5 mass-extinction here and now. Read E O Wilson on this matter. He has only devoted his last few decades at Harvard to that topic and let the meteoroids and gases rest.

Chopping of rain forests for livestock, eating more meat (more land and water requirement per capita) are real here and now.

Happy Hominid
12-22-2007, 07:11 PM
Jummy -

You do know, it is possible to be paranoid of the paranoids?

AemJeff
11-16-2009, 08:51 PM
The fact of where it was published discredits the fact of the actual occurrence and the credibility of those scientists that signed this letter, I see the logic in that. I guess now we should play name that fallacy right?

What credibility? And, by the way - yup - CFP is pure tin-foil-cap crazytime. Most of your other sources have been traceable to discredited think-tank sources with significant, documented issues of corruption on the issue.

I think you're trying to suggest an instance of the ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't apply here. It's up to you to show that these sources are believable. Good luck with that. The evidence doesn't support the assertion.

piscivorous
11-16-2009, 09:04 PM
You mean the evidence of the flawed computer models that predict such matters or the fact that Vice President's gore's propaganda movie makes such outlandish claims?

AemJeff
11-16-2009, 09:13 PM
You mean the evidence of the flawed computer models that predict such matters or the fact that Vice President's gore's propaganda movie makes such outlandish claims?

You're not really making an argument that I can detect here.