Political Forums - near term extinction

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)

- Politics and the Environment (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43)

- - near term extinction (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=7852)

There is this here VPI table local to me on BT. One more TT couldn't hurt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad (Post 230802)

I'm 67.

My plan is to live 43 more years and then be shot to death by a jealous husband at the age of 110.

I'd rather die in the saddle and leave her husband out of it.

35 years is all life folks. Humans will likely be gone 10-15 years sooner. I think we have about 20 years left. Maybe, if we are really lucky, we'll get 40, but doubtful. Also, it could be much sooner, depending on the change in the jet stream and the methane plumes that could occur. We could see DRASTIC changes in 10 years. Naysayers(or those of us who believe in error) will know for sure in about 5-7.

Look up the "bulb effect".

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak (Post 230792)

Hopefully, after seeing the hellish existence my parents had much past 80, I will be as well.

Dave

AT 83 my parents lived, on my mother's side, into their 90s. Dad would likely have made it well into his 90 but a botched surgery made that not possible.

Mark, I've lived with doomsday pronouncements all my life, so I've become skeptical of them. I'm also pretty impressed with humanity's demonstrated ability to survive just about anywhere (being omnivorous predators helps a lot....)

I'll look up your stuff a little, but I don't see worst case being extinction. Could see some big setbacks in population and technology-level perhaps....

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket (Post 230834)

A Google search of 'bulb effect' was fairly worthless. Got any links?

Had similar experince searching 'bulb effect.'

But searching on Guy McPherson found this:

Quote:

McPherson bills himself as a scientist simply passing along the science (even as he dismisses climate scientists and their work), but he cites nearly as many blog posts and newspaper columns as published studies. When he does cite a study, it’s often clear that he hasn’t taken the time to actually read it, depending instead on a news story about it. He frequently gets the information from the study completely wrong, which is a difficult thing for most readers to check given that most papers are behind paywalls (not to mention that scientific papers aren’t easy to understand).

McPherson leans heavily on claims from people associated with the “Arctic News” blog about a catastrophic, runaway release of methane that supposedly is already underway in the Arctic. Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately), the data don’t match their assertions. The latest IPCC and NAS assessment reports, in fact, deemed such a release “very unlikely” this century. One reason for that is that the Arctic has been this warm or warmer a couple times in the last 200,000 years, yet that methane stayed in the ground. Another reason is that scientists actually bother to study and model the processes involved. One thing McPherson and others like to point to is the recent work by Natalia Shakhova’s group observing bubbling plumes of methane coming up from the seafloor on the Siberian Shelf. Since we’ve only been sampling these plumes for a few years, we have no idea whether that release of methane is increasing or if these are long-term features. Similar plumes off Svalbard, for example, appear to be thousands of years old. (More to put this methane in context here.)

That’s exactly the kind of detail and nuance that’s absent from McPherson’s claims. Instead, he’s content to link to YouTube videos or blog posts (some ludicrously unscientific— see below) and run with the idea that catastrophic warming is guaranteed as a result. He just latches onto anything that sounds scary. McPherson is especially fast and loose with timeframes. He likes to point to the magnitude of past climate changes (which took thousands of years or more) as proof that we are about to undergo similar changes in the next couple decades. That’s quite clearly a fallacious argument, but McPherson never concerns himself with the details. All the casual reader learns it that there was a huge change in the past analogous to the present that shows just how screwed we really are.

excerpt from
http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2...gets-it-wrong/

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket (Post 230834)

Look up the "bulb effect".

I googled it.

Got nothing but stuff about light bulbs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 230863)

Had similar experince searching 'bulb effect.'

But searching on Guy McPherson found this:

excerpt from
http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2...gets-it-wrong/

After reading this, I'd say this thread should be moved down one space to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.

Quote:

McPherson claims to simply be passing along scientific data to the public— data that most scientists are unwilling to talk about and governments are trying to keep secret..............

In many ways, McPherson is a photo-negative of the self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” who reject the conclusions of climate science. He may be advocating the opposite conclusion, but he argues his case in the same way. The skeptics often quote snippets of science that, on full examination, doesn’t actually support their claims, and this is McPherson’s modus operandi. The skeptics dismiss science they don’t like by saying that climate researchers lie to keep the grant money coming; McPherson dismisses inconvenient science by claiming that scientists are downplaying risks because they’re too cowardly to speak the truth and flout our corporate overlords.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 230860)

A Google search of 'bulb effect' was fairly worthless. Got any links?

Sorry, my bad.
I mean to say "wet bulb temperature". Here is a link to an article about it

http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/clim...s-extinct.html

and wikimisledia
http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/clim...s-extinct.html