• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why care about extinction?

What's cowardly about noting that it's ironic that you castigate others for making ignorant posts while seemingly basking in your own ignorance?

Probably because you can't establish that I am.





This shows ignorance of basic maths

How?

basic modelling

How?

and basic climate science.

How?


We covered this already. Your confusing a very basic co2 vs time graph with "best climate models" and using reasoning that should lead us to expect that the earth will be the temperature of the outer core of the sun within a few thousand years.

We did cover this already. I have already explained that the Venus example was not supposed to be taken literally. It was just an example of what greenhouse effects can do and how earth can compare.

The whole "like Venus" thing isn't supposed to be taken literally anyway. It just gives an example of what a runaway greenhouse effect would be like. It's true that the earth has mitigating facts that would prevent it from being identical to Venus but the fact is, if global warming continues for hundreds of years at the rate it's predicted to occur over the next 100 years, we're in the frying pan.


But if you payed attention, You'd know that...
 
What's cowardly about noting that it's ironic that you castigate others for making ignorant posts while seemingly basking in your own ignorance?

Probably because you can't establish that I am.


This shows ignorance of basic maths

How?

basic modelling

How?

and basic climate science.

How?

We covered this already. Your confusing a very basic co2 vs time graph with "best climate models" and using reasoning that should lead us to expect that the earth will be the temperature of the outer core of the sun within a few thousand years.

We did cover this already. I have already explained that the Venus example was not supposed to be taken literally. It was just an example of what greenhouse effects can do and how earth can compare.

The whole "like Venus" thing isn't supposed to be taken literally anyway. It just gives an example of what a runaway greenhouse effect would be like. It's true that the earth has mitigating facts that would prevent it from being identical to Venus but the fact is, if global warming continues for hundreds of years at the rate it's predicted to occur over the next 100 years, we're in the frying pan.


But if you payed attention, You'd know that...
 
What's cowardly about noting that it's ironic that you castigate others for making ignorant posts while seemingly basking in your own ignorance?

Probably because you can't establish that I am.


This shows ignorance of basic maths

How?

basic modelling

How?

and basic climate science.

How?

We covered this already. Your confusing a very basic co2 vs time graph with "best climate models" and using reasoning that should lead us to expect that the earth will be the temperature of the outer core of the sun within a few thousand years.

We did cover this already. I have already explained that the Venus example was not supposed to be taken literally. It was just an example of what greenhouse effects can do and how earth can compare.

The whole "like Venus" thing isn't supposed to be taken literally anyway. It just gives an example of what a runaway greenhouse effect would be like. It's true that the earth has mitigating facts that would prevent it from being identical to Venus but the fact is, if global warming continues for hundreds of years at the rate it's predicted to occur over the next 100 years, we're in the frying pan.


But if you payed attention, You'd know that...
 
What's cowardly about noting that it's ironic that you castigate others for making ignorant posts while seemingly basking in your own ignorance?

Probably because you can't establish that I am.


This shows ignorance of basic maths

How?

basic modelling

How?

and basic climate science.

How?

We covered this already. Your confusing a very basic co2 vs time graph with "best climate models" and using reasoning that should lead us to expect that the earth will be the temperature of the outer core of the sun within a few thousand years.

We did cover this already. I have already explained that the Venus example was not supposed to be taken literally. It was just an example of what greenhouse effects can do and how earth can compare.

The whole "like Venus" thing isn't supposed to be taken literally anyway. It just gives an example of what a runaway greenhouse effect would be like. It's true that the earth has mitigating facts that would prevent it from being identical to Venus but the fact is, if global warming continues for hundreds of years at the rate it's predicted to occur over the next 100 years, we're in the frying pan.


But if you payed attention, You'd know that...
 
What's cowardly about noting that it's ironic that you castigate others for making ignorant posts while seemingly basking in your own ignorance?

Probably because you can't establish that I am.


This shows ignorance of basic maths

How?

basic modelling

How?

and basic climate science.

How?

We covered this already. Your confusing a very basic co2 vs time graph with "best climate models" and using reasoning that should lead us to expect that the earth will be the temperature of the outer core of the sun within a few thousand years.

We did cover this already. I have already explained that the Venus example was not supposed to be taken literally. It was just an example of what greenhouse effects can do and how earth can compare.

The whole "like Venus" thing isn't supposed to be taken literally anyway. It just gives an example of what a runaway greenhouse effect would be like. It's true that the earth has mitigating facts that would prevent it from being identical to Venus but the fact is, if global warming continues for hundreds of years at the rate it's predicted to occur over the next 100 years, we're in the frying pan.


But if you payed attention, You'd know that...
 
What's cowardly about noting that it's ironic that you castigate others for making ignorant posts while seemingly basking in your own ignorance?

Probably because you can't establish that I am.


This shows ignorance of basic maths

How?

basic modelling

How?

and basic climate science.

How?

We covered this already. Your confusing a very basic co2 vs time graph with "best climate models" and using reasoning that should lead us to expect that the earth will be the temperature of the outer core of the sun within a few thousand years.

We did cover this already. I have already explained that the Venus example was not supposed to be taken literally. It was just an example of what greenhouse effects can do and how earth can compare.

The whole "like Venus" thing isn't supposed to be taken literally anyway. It just gives an example of what a runaway greenhouse effect would be like. It's true that the earth has mitigating facts that would prevent it from being identical to Venus but the fact is, if global warming continues for hundreds of years at the rate it's predicted to occur over the next 100 years, we're in the frying pan.
 
oh dear, and you were trying so hard to prove how clever you are, and then you go and post the same reply 6 times....oops!

You believe that a simple co2 vs time plot constitutes a "best climate model" and that you can extrapolate from that thousands of years into the future using a simple exponential growth model.

How is that not ignorant of basic modelling, basic maths and basic climate science? Your model leads us to an earth temperature of that of the outer core of the sun within a few thousand years. This is because your model is woefully inaccurate, you don't understand exponential growth and you don't understand that climate science is more involved than a time to Co2 plot. How much clearer do you need that to be?

Should i repost this 6 times to get it through your head?
 
Last edited:
oh dear, and you were trying so hard to prove how clever you are, and then you go and post the same reply 6 times....oops!

You believe that a simple co2 vs time plot constitutes a "best climate model" and that you can extrapolate from that thousands of years into the future using a simple exponential growth model.

How is that not ignorant of basic modelling, basic maths and basic climate science? How much clearer do you need that to be?

Should i repost this 6 times to get it through your head?

Just to have it mentioned: The utmost limit of the greenhouse effect and global warning is at a point, where our planet looses exactly the amount it receives (by radiation). And that point is _far_ below venus climate. We are a little bit farhter away from the sun, you know.

If you do a simple calculation don't forget to take all temperatures based on 0K.
 
Just to have it mentioned: The utmost limit of the greenhouse effect and global warning is at a point, where our planet looses exactly the amount it receives (by radiation). And that point is _far_ below venus climate. We are a little bit farhter away from the sun, you know.

If you do a simple calculation don't forget to take all temperatures based on 0K.

interesting - do you have any more info on that - or a link?


It'd be good to get something out of this trainwreck thread.....:)
 
For one, climate models don't work that way. The predictive power is relatively weak, quickly falling off in accuracy after a small amount of time.

Secondly, even when the majority of the earth's carbon dioxide and water vapour was in the atmosphere, there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

Thirdly, you're assuming that the graph suggests that CO2 levels will continue to increase forever. If you're claiming a runaway greenhouse effect, at what concentration would CO2 need to be in order for this to occur? Is it more or less than the reserves of fossil fuels we have access to with current technology?

Athon

I think the concern about a Venus was that it was possible in the sense that we are causing what is in geological terms a rapid change in temperature. The last time all the Carbon was in the air as CO2, the temperature did stabilise. That would have been due to a slower process. While not likely, is Venus possible, since we are creating a different scenario? The climate is a chaotic system that is bound to a strange attractor, what if this time it heads towards a different one, since it will be given a different kick up? Once again, not likely, according to the scientific consensus.
 
How are "yeast vats" an example of 'ecosystems optimized towards supporting humans'?

It is posible to run such a system with a very high level of effecency makeing very large human populations posible.


What are you basing this on?


Focus of recent research.

The Drug companies use plants and trees to find cancer cures often.

Did.



Many cancer drugs were discovered by using plants or trees and are still used to treat cancers.

Were

70s



early 90s

This would before a number of significant advances in chemistry and biology.

Ever heard of a thing called "Zoo's"? or Wildlife sanctuaries?

Oh wait, Even better..There's this new thing called "Traveling". Great way to get outside of "place X".

:rolleyes:

Not really an option for a large percentage of the planet.


So the fact that a "mauritanian" child won't see non-local wildlife is a reason not to fight for the preservation of wildlife for people who could see it? Who's to say this child won't grow up and decide to travel to these places to see the wildlife?

Statistics.



I'm just as worried for any endangered species. Sure some plants or fungi play important roles in the ecosystem, but then again, Tigers and Lions are simply more fun to look at.

So what? We will not die if the Tigers and Lions do.


********. How many times has some dormant virus found in some plant species killed off many people? I can't think of one instance.

Historicaly we haven't done much messing around with DNA.

How many times has plants or trees provided us with insight on how to cure a disease? I can list dozens.

No. In the bast plants were the best source for wide numbers of chemicals. That ceased to be the case in the late 90s.


Sure I have.

What many don't seem to be understanding is that all life on earth is part of the global ecosystem.

We've been through this. Thermal vents suggest otherwise.


This means that every single species has evolved to be part of a fragile chain of other species. If one species goes extinct it can cause many other species to go extinct which in turn can cause many other species to go extinct. Humans, being part of that chain, have an invested interest in the well being of all species, even the ones that don't seem to make much of a difference. Scientists can't predict how the extinction of a single species will affect the entire ecosystem let alone the extinction of hundreds or thousands of species.

Well expermental evidence (wipeing out a number of species of giant tortoise) suggests no impact. Wipeing out Island ecosystems does not appear to have a wider impact.

This has effects for all humans in every way imaginable. If humans care about the existence of their species then they should care about the extinction of any species.

No. If the amount of rescources needed to preserve a species outweights the net gain of doing so there is no reason to preserve it.

More reasons to care about extinction of species is simply the fact that we want future generations to be able to observe their beauty directly, and not just from a text book. How tragic would it be for your offspring to blame your generation for not being able to witness first hand, many species that are currently going extinct?

If that is all they can blame me for I think I will have done pretty well.


I for one, would of loved to of seen the Dodo bird or the Thylacine, or even the recently extinct Chinese river dolphin.

None of those species were critical one way or another.
 
I figure with all the genetic mutants being produced in the labs, it will all balance out in the end in terms of species diversity.

I don't think any Colonist is going to be crying in Heaven about posterity's condemnation of him for extinguishing the dodo, however.
 
oh dear, and you were trying so hard to prove how clever you are, and then you go and post the same reply 6 times....oops!

It was the forum.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79051

You believe that a simple co2 vs time plot constitutes a "best climate model" and that you can extrapolate from that thousands of years into the future using a simple exponential growth model.

It's not a single climate model but a compilation of the best.
 
It is posible to run such a system with a very high level of effecency makeing very large human populations posible.

I asked for a "human" example. An example of a human society that does this. Not a bacteria society.:rolleyes:


Focus of recent research.

Where can I find this research?




Still do.






Were


70s




early 90s

This would before a number of significant advances in chemistry and biology.

What advances occurred since then that made natural substances obsolete?


Not really an option for a large percentage of the planet.

Not yet. That has to do with economics and is a different subject.




Statistics.

You're making assumptions here.



So what? We will not die if the Tigers and Lions do.

So they're valuable to keep alive for simple diversity purposes.


Historicaly we haven't done much messing around with DNA.

You're not making sense. Your assertion was that we should not care about preserving the many species that we can potentially derive cures for diseases from (as we have in the past) because there is potential that we could somehow let loose a "dormant virus" and kill off millions. I showed this to be nonsense. Now you change it to "messing around with DNA"? We don't need to "mess around with DNA" to derive cures for diseases from plants and fungi necessarily.


No. In the bast plants were the best source for wide numbers of chemicals. That ceased to be the case in the late 90s.

:rolleyes:

Google Scholar

Try doing some research.


We've been through this. Thermal vents suggest otherwise.

That's simply false..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent#Biological_communities


No. If the amount of rescources needed to preserve a species outweights the net gain of doing so there is no reason to preserve it.

We can never predict the net gain. The gain from exploiting them to extinction is trivial.



If that is all they can blame me for I think I will have done pretty well.

You want your generation to be remembered as ignorant and greedy exploiters of the environment?


None of those species were critical one way or another.

None of them were critical? What does that mean? They were right before extinction!
 
Why biodiversity matters.

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-i-think-biodiversity-matters.html

Firstly, look at why genetic diversity is important to a species. When an organism’s environment is unchanging it’s actually not that important. But when an organism’s environment is variable, genetic diversity allows the species as a whole to cope with change, though individuals with the ‘wrong’ genes loose out. If this concept is extended to all species, biodiversity makes the Earth’s biological systems as a whole more robust.

If climate change, for example, knocks out one species of nitrifying bacteria, bacterial genetic diversity will hopefully allow another species to fill its place and keep the nitrogen cycle going happily on its way. Reduce the amount of diversity and you reduce the amount of raw material you have available to compensate for change, to act as a buffer as it were.

Talk of previous mass extinctions as normal is not helpful from a human viewpoint. A collapse of the nitrogen or carbon cycles, for example, would be catastrophic. The reason why this is unlikely to happen is that there is plenty of natural redundancy built in to the system. The redundancy comes from biodiversity, which is really genetic diversity, and genetic diversity is self-promoted by interactions with genetically diverse organisms (and diverse non-organic environments).
 
There are other species.



Most animals are not critical. Plants and bacteria would be more of an issue.


yeah. we could do without you, for example.......
 
I figure with all the genetic mutants being produced in the labs, it will all balance out in the end in terms of species diversity.

I don't think any Colonist is going to be crying in Heaven about posterity's condemnation of him for extinguishing the dodo, however.


really? how do you know?
 

Back
Top Bottom