The coming Ice Age

[ZedMikey]

Any idea why that would be? On the surface (of the subject, not the ocean :flipoff:) it would seem that increased oceanic CO2 and temperature would cause plankton to grow more abundantly.

It apparently has to do with the stratification of water layers and nutrients for the phytoplankton. Cooler water has more nutrients and larger stratifications (which then allow deep water to bring even more nutrients to the surface).

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

Also from the paper in Nature...

The effects of SST on Chl are probably explained by its influence on water column stability and MLD [mixed layer depth]. Increasing SST leads to a shallower mixed layer, which further limits nutrient supply to phytoplankton in already stratified tropical waters, but may benefit phytoplankton at higher latitudes where growth is constrained by light availability and deep mixing.

 

[ZedMikey]

We are part of the world, what we do is not out side of the natural world.

With this view, SUVs burning fossil fuels is natural. Humans fly naturally; we build planes. That's natural. Hell, we are the only species to be able to destroy each other with natural nuclear weapons.

Sent from my 100% natural Dell Precision M6500

Humans hunting animals to extinction show those species were not fit to survive. You do believe in survival of the fittest? If another animal hunts a species to extinction it's natural? But if we do it, it's somehow different. That's a pretty moral idea from a scientist.

"Survival of the fittest" is a mischaracterization of natural selection, especially in this context. The speeds at which technology has allowed us to exterminate an entire species is NOT "survival of the fittest" or even natural selection. It is exactly as I put it... extermination.

Natural selection usually (though not always) happens via selective pressures that are minor enough to allow a species to adapt. Humans driving (hunting is not always the problem) animals to extinction, on the other hand, usually happens far too quickly for a species to adapt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/extinction-species-evolve

The IUCN created shock waves with its major assessment of the world's biodiversity in 2004, which calculated that the rate of extinction had reached 100-1,000 times that suggested by the fossil records before humans.

It's no definitive sign of causation, but the link to destruction of habitats, etc. is pretty damning.

http://listverse.com/2009/07/25/10-recently-extinct-animals/

So, tell me how the introduction of non-native animals/viruses and extensive hunting of the thylacine in Tasmania was "natural." Or how the destruction of the ecosystem of the Yangtze river from pollution and heavy boating traffic "naturally" led to the extinction of the Baiji river dolphin.

 

[CrustyJeep]

With this view, SUVs burning fossil fuels is natural. Humans fly naturally; we build planes. That's natural. Hell, we are the only species to be able to destroy each other with natural nuclear weapons.

I actually had to read this again to make sure it didn't start with "with this logic" :redneck:

 

[TreeClimber]

I actually had to read this again to make sure it didn't start with "with this logic" :redneck:

A view is logic, naturally, of course.

 

[ZedMikey]

A view is logic, naturally, of course.

With this logic, all logic is naturally viewable... ummm... or something.

 

[ZedMikey]

I actually had to read this again to make sure it didn't start with "with this logic" :redneck:

There would have to have been some logic there to begin with for that phrase to work. :redneck:

 

[CrustyJeep]

There would have to have been some logic there to begin with for that phrase to work. :redneck:

That's why I double checked your logic :redneck:

 

[whatthe?]

[/B]

With this view, SUVs burning fossil fuels is natural. Humans fly naturally; we build planes. That's natural. Hell, we are the only species to be able to destroy each other with natural nuclear weapons.you get it, we are part of the natural world

Sent from my 100% natural Dell Precision M6500


"Survival of the fittest" is a mischaracterization of natural selection, especially in this context. The speeds at which technology has allowed us to exterminate an entire species is NOT "survival of the fittest" or even natural selection. It is exactly as I put it... extermination I like this, natural selection/survival of the fittest doesn't count when humans are involved.

Natural selection usually (though not always like now) happens via selective pressures that are minor enough to allow a species to adapt. Humans driving (hunting is not always the problem) animals to extinction, on the other hand, usually happens far too quickly for a species to adapt.that's because they're not fit to survive.

So, tell me how the introduction of non-native animals/viruses and extensive hunting of the thylacine in Tasmania was "natural." Or how the destruction of the ecosystem of the Yangtze river from pollution and heavy boating traffic "naturally" led to the extinction of the Baiji river dolphin.

Because we're part of this world and if a species can't survive in that world that we've influenced they are not fit and go extinct. I know a lot of people, especially scientists, like to remove humans as part of the "natural" world so we can all feel bad for how much we can influence/ modify our environment but we're a species that so far has proved to be fit to survive. We should try and take care of the world better than we are but to say we're not part of the natual world is, well....:eeek::haha:

 

[CrustyJeep]

Because we're part of this world and if a species can't survive in that world that we've influenced they are not fit and go extinct. I know a lot of people, especially scientists, like to remove humans as part of the "natural" world so we can all feel bad for how much we can influence/ modify our environment but we're a species that so far has proved to be fit to survive. We should try and take care of the world better than we are but to say we're not part of the natual world is, well....:eeek::haha:

Weird, I had you pegged for older than 16... But this kind of argument seems to indicate otherwise.

 

[whatthe?]

Weird, I had you pegged for older than 16... But this kind of argument seems to indicate otherwise.

I wrote it that way so you'd understand. Your kid(s) can help with any of the words with more than three letters.

 

[CrustyJeep]

I wrote it that way so you'd understand. Your kid(s) can help with any of the words with more than three letters.

My kid would probly say, "OMS, stupid freshmen :shaking:" :flipoff:

 

[whatthe?]

My kid would probly say, "OMS, stupid freshmen. Do ya get it Dad? Need any help with the words? :shaking:" :flipoff:

....

 

[ZedMikey]

[/B]

Because we're part of this world and if a species can't survive in that world that we've influenced they are not fit and go extinct. I know a lot of people, especially scientists, like to remove humans as part of the "natural" world so we can all feel bad for how much we can influence/ modify our environment but we're a species that so far has proved to be fit to survive. We should try and take care of the world better than we are but to say we're not part of the natual world is, well....:eeek::haha:

I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word "natural."

nat

 

[whatthe?]

Well here we are again, we're going to disagree on definitions. Natural has about a dozen definitions as does nature. A big component of natural selection and how successful a species is, is determined by reproduction. Successful species reproduce, non-successful ones don't. If a species can't survive with man, it is not surviving the selection process. Be careful with your use of "technology" because one of the basic definitions is tools and use of. Lot's of other animals use tools and I know you would still consider them part of the natural world. Do you want to define how advanced a tool has to be before it becomes artificial? Speaking of tools, it's probably time for Crusty to jump in.:kissmyass:

 

[ZedMikey]

Well here we are again, we're going to disagree on definitions. Natural has about a dozen definitions as does nature.

Sure, but the relevant one is the one I posted. :fawkdancesmiley:

A big component of natural selection and how successful a species is, is determined by reproduction. Successful species reproduce, non-successful ones don't. If a species can't survive with man, it is not surviving the selection process.

Correct, but my point is that if a species can't survive with man destroying ecosystems, etc., it is not surviving the ARTIFICIAL selection process.

Be careful with your use of "technology" because one of the basic definitions is tools and use of. Lot's of other animals use tools and I know you would still consider them part of the natural world. Do you want to define how advanced a tool has to be before it becomes artificial?

Using tools =/= using technology. A "tool" used by an animal is almost always a natural object used as is. That is not "technology"; that is just using something they found. Sharpening sticks, on the other hand (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070222-chimps-spears.html)... that's "technology", albeit primitive.

I have no problem lumping those chimpanzees into the same category as us in terms of the use of technology. I consider them part of the natural world just like I consider us part of the natural world (a point you still seem to be missing). It is the technology that I don't consider part of the natural world, and as soon as those chimps are using their technology to modify entire ecosystems to the point of the extermination of entire species, I won't call it "natural", either.

On the topic of defining tools, that's easy. If it is a natural object used as is, it is natural; if it is a manufactured tool (even as primitive as a stick sharpened by a chimp), it is artificial.

 

[ZedMikey]

To bridge threads... here's an interesting article comparing the tool use of chimpanzees and bonobos.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000334721000343X

Both species use a lot of different tools, but they are almost entirely found objects, not manufactured.

 

[Jaydog]

[/B]

Because we're part of this world and if a species can't survive in that world that we've influenced they are not fit and go extinct. I know a lot of people, especially scientists, like to remove humans as part of the "natural" world so we can all feel bad for how much we can influence/ modify our environment but we're a species that so far has proved to be fit to survive. We should try and take care of the world better than we are but to say we're not part of the natual world is, well....:eeek::haha:

Humans are like wolves, both of which should be exterminated so that this world can function as intended....Oh wait :redneck:

 

[ZedMikey]

There was a new paper published back in April that reexamined the temperature and CO2 record from the Antarctic ice cores and includes 79 other temperature proxy data sets to show that, globally, the CO2 rise actually preceded the temperature rise out of the most recent ice age.

When the Antarctic ice cores were examined initially (where the CO2 lagging behind the temperature came from), the temperature record was, obviously, only a local record. When the additional proxies were added to reconstruct average global temperatures, it turns out that the temperature increase actually tracks the CO2 level, even toward the beginning. It looks like CO2 may have been more instrumental in the onset of deglaciation than was originally though.

BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404
Nature paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

The abstract:

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

A fairly explanatory bit from the intro:

Global temperature reconstructions and transient model simulations spanning the past century and millennium have been essential to the attribution of recent climate change, and a similar strategy would probably improve our understanding of glacial cycle dynamics. Here we use a network of proxy temperature records that provide broad spatial coverage to show that global temperature closely tracked the increase in CO2 concentration over the last deglaciation, and that variations in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) caused a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres, supporting an early hypothesis that identified potentially important roles for these mechanisms11. These findings, supported by transient simulations with a coupled ocean

 

[ZedMikey]

For the tl;dr crowd...

Blue is the global temperature reconstruction, red is the Antarctic ice-core temperature reconstruction, and the yellow dots are the atmospheric CO2.

 

[Jaydog]

Those darn prehistoric coal burning power plants :haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

Those darn prehistoric coal burning power plants :haha:

Those darn people that keep spouting the same BS that nobody is even remotely suggesting :haha:

 

[Jaydog]

Those darn people that keep spouting the same BS that nobody is even remotely suggesting :haha:

I enjoy watching your views change :awesomework:

 

[ZedMikey]

I enjoy watching your views change :awesomework:

Would you like to point out when I held the view that all atmospheric CO2 was the result of coal-burning powerplants?

 

[Jaydog]

Would you like to point out when I held the view that all atmospheric CO2 was the result of coal-burning powerplants?

I'm not going to argue what we've already discussed, you can read through the thread as easily as I. :awesomework:

 

[WA-Wheeler]

[No message]

 

[japerry]

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/08/climate-distortion.html

This is fun.