Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#1103163 - 08/05/2012 09:17 climate change craziness thread!
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6045
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
What next guys!!!!!!!


"Dinosaurs passing wind may have caused climate change

Huge plant-eating dinosaurs may have produced enough greenhouse gas by breaking wind to alter the Earth's climate, research suggests.
2:46AM BST 07 May 2012

Like huge cows, the mighty sauropods would have generated enormous quantities of methane."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinos...ate-change.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/climate-craziness-of-the-week-paleotootology/#more-63027

Top
#1103203 - 08/05/2012 13:24 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: bd bucketingdown]
petethemoskeet Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/08/2003
Posts: 1386
Loc: toowoomba
Ahh i get it now,CO2 is not the bad so called greenhouse gas after all.And to think they used a simple mathematical equation to work the amount of methane expelled. smirk

Top
#1103210 - 08/05/2012 13:39 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: petethemoskeet]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6045
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Maybe an idea for Julie Gillard's next tax...a 25% "flatulence tax" on cofee, baked beans, brocolli, etc, etc.
Not to mention the secret "flatulent police" issuing on the spot fines!

Top
#1103213 - 08/05/2012 13:48 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
It is a reasonable hypothesis. You can't disprove it either Ian. Once again it just comes down to the details and attribution. Its similar to the foundation of the AGW hypothesis in that it is impossible that we are not influencing the amount of GHG in the atmosphere - its merely the details that people disagree on. Naturally there is a weird nomenclature thing here - does this mean it would be DGW? or maybe we can dispense with the label and just refer to GW. I'm surprised it took so long for someone to actually come out and say it - I'd already assumed that it would be a rational piece of thinking that dinosaurs would have had some influence on their environment given the scale of the population - after all bacteria managed to do it as well.


Edited by Severely Tall (08/05/2012 13:49)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#1103302 - 08/05/2012 21:46 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Severely Tall]
roves Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 02/02/2005
Posts: 1638
Loc: Paringa-Riverland
A rational piece of thinking. ROFLMAO
_________________________
YTD-36mm AVE-260mm

Top
#1103323 - 09/05/2012 07:06 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: bd bucketingdown]
GrizzlyBear Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/06/2011
Posts: 2359
Loc: Yetholme [1180m] Central Table...
I will be the no1 offender then.
Originally Posted By: bd bucketingdown
Maybe an idea for Julie Gillard's next tax...a 25% "flatulence tax" on cofee, baked beans, brocolli, etc, etc.
Not to mention the secret "flatulent police" issuing on the spot fines!

Top
#1103339 - 09/05/2012 08:52 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: GrizzlyBear]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
ST: "It sounds a reasonable hypothesis. And you can't disprove it either..."

Excellent! Looks like ST is a contender for the paper that we should write:

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthrea...s_a#Post1103171

I reckon we can adjust out the effects of Krakatoa and Santa Maria or whatever was the big volcano at the turn of the century. And then we will have a perfect fit. If we get a move one it'll still make pride of place in AR5!
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1103357 - 09/05/2012 10:24 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Arnost]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Incorrectly quoting Arnost - how tacky.

You can't disprove it, and therefore the hypothesis is reasonable. Purely to stick with the scientific rationale:

IF Dinosaurs made any contribution to the methane gas budget and therefore the greenhouse gases of the time then it is possible that they may have had some influence on the climate system. This doesn't say its major or substantial, it merely stands to reason that if these animals were in such high numbers (fossil records would suggest this) that they would have contributed something to the methane budget - thats uncontestable. It doesn't prove that they were an irreversible change in the climate system, or that the changes they made had an impact, just that they contributed to the system.

Applying similar reasoning:
Given humans have caused deforestation then it is likely that we have had some influence on the global carbon budget above what the remainder of the system would have. - Stands to reason and proven fact.

If industrialisation of the human race has contributed to an increase in the emissions of GHG into the atmosphere, then it stands to reason that it is likely that the contribution of humans has affected the overall carbon budget and climate system above what would occur naturally. Whether this has an appreciable influence or impact on the climate system is another issue entirely, as is the degree to which humans have an effect. Again - the hypothesis is plausable, its the implications that are uncertain. It is impossible to prove we do not have some sort of contribution to the climate system (some being a real number from 0.0000000001 to 100 :P).

If you can't recognise that you might want to read a little book by Popper wink.


Edited by Severely Tall (09/05/2012 10:30)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#1103375 - 09/05/2012 12:00 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Severely Tall]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
[quote]ST: "It sounds is a reasonable hypothesis. And you can't disprove it either..."[quote]

My humblest appologies for my tackiness... I quoted you out of memory as I had the link in the phone memory and like me it can only remember one thing at a time. I sincerely hope this satisfies your pickiness.

And oh yeah - If I remember the crux of Popper correctly, didn't he say that it is impossible to prove anything? And therefore for it to be "science" there HAS to be methodology such that it is possible to be disproved by experiment or test? And so if as you say a negative is impossible to prove, that in my (and Popper's) view has about the same amount of scientific credibility as saying it is impossible to prove God does not exist and therefore it is plausible that he does.

Tacky

Obviously Popper has been rewritten and adjusted so that when we
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1103383 - 09/05/2012 12:38 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Arnost]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Originally Posted By: Arnost
[quote]ST: "It sounds is a reasonable hypothesis. And you can't disprove it either..."[quote]

My humblest appologies for my tackiness... I quoted you out of memory as I had the link in the phone memory and like me it can only remember one thing at a time. I sincerely hope this satisfies your pickiness.

And oh yeah - If I remember the crux of Popper correctly, didn't he say that it is impossible to prove anything? And therefore for it to be "science" there HAS to be methodology such that it is possible to be disproved by experiment or test? And so if as you say a negative is impossible to prove, that in my (and Popper's) view has about the same amount of scientific credibility as saying it is impossible to prove God does not exist and therefore it is plausible that he does.

Obviously Popper has been rewritten and adjusted so that when we


It wasn't actually that you got the quote wrong, more you took me out of context.

"And therefore for it to be "science" there HAS to be methodology such that it is possible to be disproved by experiment or test?"

By inference this also means that nothing can be totally be disproven unless there is a methodology or test to do so. Unfortunately there is no way we can conclusively disprove that dinosaurs did not contribute to the amount of GHG (and it stands to reason that they did - unless somehow the researchers were wrong and they didn't produce methane). The only way would be to directly measure it, or prove that something else entirely could explain that particular emission. You can check if you like, but this is a direct implication of Popper's argument. Even if the dinosaurs only contributed one petite iota of GHG - that would still mean that the hypothesis they influenced the concertration of GHG would be at least in part true. Is it significant, or did it have an appreciable influence on climate - well thats not what I was suggesting. Its not that a negative is impossible to prove, but merely that a methodology which makes it possible is not yet applicable.

A similar issue arises around the God argument - a reasonable test and methodology would be for science to disprove there is a God by scouring the entire universe, including regions which we may not actually be physically able to see (assuming the "God" your looking for is corporeal or not something on the atomic level). As we have all these unknowns to deal with - It is therefore plausable that a god MAY exist beyond the ability of our methodology to detect - Science has not been able to disprove god, and religion can't prove a God exists incontravertibly either. Its a whole other debate, but an application of the same reasoning.


Edited by Severely Tall (09/05/2012 12:39)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#1103389 - 09/05/2012 13:02 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Severely Tall]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Quote:
By inference this also means that nothing can be totally be disproven unless there is a methodology or test to do so.


Exactly - and that is the foundation of modern science. The sematic issue is with proving a positive or disproving a negative etc... and so out came the term to falsify and the concept of falsification. For something to be scientific the theory has to make a prediction - this can be either positive (something is) or negative (something is not) - and that can be tested. It makes it difficult to do this where the data (like in history) is not available, and so effectively untestable.

Quote:
The only way would be to directly measure it, or prove that something else entirely could explain that particular emission. You can check if you like, but this is a direct implication of Popper's argument. Even if the dinosaurs only contributed one petite iota of GHG - that would still mean that the hypothesis they influenced the concertration of GHG would be at least in part true.


And that is why I tried to have a bit of fun [and given that as you say we cannot prove or disprove this without having millions of dinosaurs to test] we can run a similar argument and elimiate the pesky late 19th century temp dip by blaming the near extinction of the American bison over the same timeframe.

For logically, the disapearance of hundreds of millions of bison MUST have reduced the usual associated bovine flattulence significanlty - and using the same argument - caused global cooling.

I thought it was funny.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1103392 - 09/05/2012 13:34 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Arnost]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Oh sorry, I sort of got lost between the two threads as to what was going on blush sleep depreviation and a crazy workload = not the quickest cookie on the block crazy . And I now appreciate the humour - not a bad effort at all laugh
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#1103424 - 09/05/2012 16:23 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Severely Tall]
CoastalStorm22 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/07/2006
Posts: 2983
Loc: Lane Cove, Sydney, NSW
Just what we need, another climate change thread.... frown
_________________________
My WX Stations

Lane Cove PWS - Dee Why PWS

Top
#1103429 - 09/05/2012 16:44 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Severely Tall]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Just a simple little sum on those giant plant eating sauropods creating global warming through their methane loaded farts.

Methane has a life in the atmosphere of about 12 years before it is absorbed by methane chomping bacteria or other natural sinks, some of which are still unknown.

So if some higher power threw a switch and instantly stocked the earth with the plant eating sauropods during the Cretaceous some 100 million years ago, the global methane levels might well increase but after some 12 years the methane levels would stabilise at the new level as the methane sinks took up that 12 year old methane which would then only be replaced by the latest sauropod farting.

So unless the sauropod numbers kept on increasing ad infinitum, the methane levels and any warming from the sauropod methane loaded farts would simply remain at the same constant levels or if changing, just match the increase and / or decrease in sauropod numbers and their farting ability with a time lag of some 12 years before again stabilising in line with the new numbers of sauropods.

And those plant eating sauropods were around for a fair proportion of the Cretaceous, at least some many tens's of millions of years.
Of such is the standard of many papers that invoke climate warming today.

Top
#1103438 - 09/05/2012 17:59 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: ROM]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Quote:
A mid-sized sauropod probably weighed about 44,000 pounds, and there were a few dozen of them per square mile (kilometer), the researchers found.

from the article

I'm not sure there were so many plant eating sauropods around at any one time... if one considers that there was no grass, and that the only thing to eat would have been slow growing ferns and whatever passed for trees back then, it is I feel unlikely that there could have been many per sq mile. And cetrtainly not dozens. I'd bet that their roaming range would have been measured in hundreds and probably thousands of sq miles. The beasts would have probably laid bare an area and moved on probably returning years later after the area had a chance to recover.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1103443 - 09/05/2012 19:09 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Arnost]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Ah but Arnost, you are also forgetting the growth rates associated with a much higher CO2, more tropical environment. The plant growth rates were probably quite a bit higher than what we are used to. I would guess something similar to the effect the mass migration of elephants from feeding territory to territory would be a reasonable comparison. The elephants certainly don't have to wait years to return.

As to you point ROM, yes it is quite a valid observation.


Edited by Severely Tall (09/05/2012 19:09)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#1103446 - 09/05/2012 19:22 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: Severely Tall]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6045
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
It is obvious that the dinosaurs flatulated so much methane, that they lierally poisoned and heated the atmosphere with their overdose of methane...and thereby all died from heat exhaustion and lack of oxygen by their own hands, er paws, er bottoms! A simple explanation which has been overlooked by scientists!

Top
#1103450 - 09/05/2012 19:48 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Quote:
Ah but Arnost, you are also forgetting the growth rates associated with a much higher CO2, more tropical environment.


Yes, there is that. But against that is the indisputable fact that a 20 ton sauropod is big. And long nose to tail. This suggests that the sauropods would not have been feeding in dense forrests. And suggests that the food availability may have been low somewhat negating the fast growth...
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1103472 - 09/05/2012 22:12 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: ROM]
MC Thomas Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/12/2004
Posts: 1119
Loc: Melbourne
Originally Posted By: ROM

Methane has a life in the atmosphere of about 12 years before it is absorbed by methane chomping bacteria or other natural sinks, some of which are still unknown.


The first part sounds about right but I thought the main sink for methane in the atmosphere was the reaction with hydroxyl radicals.

CH4 + OH -> CH3 + H2O
CH3 + O2 -> CH3O2
etc

Also, in the case of cattle 90% of methane is belched through the mouth and nostrils.

Top
#1103503 - 10/05/2012 09:20 Re: climate change craziness thread! [Re: MC Thomas]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Just cause it's true.

_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
1 registered (Dr Philosophy), 44 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Cloudmaster_dup1, Floodhunta, floody, Xavo
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24189 Topics
1528929 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image