What Climate change?

[BlasterBates]

Nobody claimed the Nepal catastophe was caused by global warming, however there is nothing loony about the idea of seismic events being triggered by changes in glaciation or hydrology ...

Seven Years To Save The Planet: The Questions And The Answers | Popular Science | Books | Bill McGuire

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o...919/2501.short

I would beg to disagree it's a very loony idea...

Absolutely no evidence other than a very localised effect to similar builders causing minimal vibrations. It's complete and utter nonsense, obvious even to a layman like myself.

But if you don't believe me then go and ask a seismologist.

[EternalOptimist]

Followed by 'I wonder what on earth is not caused by it', you slippery customer. Are you Jim Steele?

Put your brain-care specialist on danger money pj.

I have a spare grip here. would you like to borrow it ?

[pjclarke]

This paper says something pretty significant, regardless of when it was published.

Most relevant scientific papers are older than one year.

Non-scientists often naively confuse journalism and science assuming anything that wasn't immediately published is irrelevant, i.e. scoffing at a paper because it wasn't published yesterday in the same way you might scoff at an out of date newspaper.

I don't disagree and I was not scoffing, just putting your 'than previously thought', which could imply a new breakthrough, into context. I went looking for other papers on leaf stomata as a CO2 proxy and I found :

A stomatal frequency record based on buried Tsuga heterophylla needles reveals significant centennial-scale atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium. The record includes four CO2 minima of 260–275 ppmv (ca. A.D. 860 and A.D. 1150, and less prominently, ca. A.D. 1600 and 1800). Alternating CO2 maxima of 300–320 ppmv are present at A.D. 1000, A.D. 1300, and ca. A.D. 1700. These CO2 fluctuations parallel global terrestrial air temperature changes, as well as oceanic surface temperature fluctuations in the North Atlantic. The results obtained in this study corroborate the notion of a continuous coupling of the preindustrial atmospheric CO2 regime and climate.

Interesting, no?

Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles

[pjclarke]

<Blether.>

But if you don't believe me then go and ask a seismologist.

There is plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis that climate change will trigger seismic and volcanic events. The mechanisms are: increased sea level applying more pressure on tectonic plates, melting ice sheets releasing pressure, and changing patterns of rainfall causing flooding and hydrological changes.

Climate forcing of volcano lateral collapse: evidence from Mount Etna, Sicily | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
How will melting of ice affect volcanic hazards in the twenty-first century? | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Multiple effects of ice load changes and associated stress change on magmatic systems
Response of faults to climate-driven changes in ice and water volumes on Earth's surface - ResearchGate

A book

Wiley: Climate Forcing of Geological Hazards - Bill McGuire, Mark A. Maslin

And a conference ..

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o....full.pdf+html


You may not like or believe the evidence but to deny that it exists makes you a .....

[BlasterBates]

I don't disagree and I was not scoffing, just putting your 'than previously thought', which could imply a new breakthrough, into context. I went looking for other papers on leaf stomata as a CO2 proxy and I found :



Interesting, no?

Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles

It means CO2 can rise and fall significantly in a short space of time without destroying the world.

It's not flat....as the Greenpeace news paper would have you believe.

[BlasterBates]

There is plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis that climate change will trigger seismic and volcanic events. The mechanisms are: increased sea level applying more pressure on tectonic plates, melting ice sheets releasing pressure, and changing patterns of rainfall causing flooding and hydrological changes.

Climate forcing of volcano lateral collapse: evidence from Mount Etna, Sicily | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
How will melting of ice affect volcanic hazards in the twenty-first century? | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Multiple effects of ice load changes and associated stress change on magmatic systems
Response of faults to climate-driven changes in ice and water volumes on Earth's surface - ResearchGate

A book

Wiley: Climate Forcing of Geological Hazards - Bill McGuire, Mark A. Maslin

And a conference ..

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o....full.pdf+html


You may not like or believe the evidence but to deny that it exists makes you a .....

You really are scraping the barrel sure small tremors can be caused by builders so you can find all sorts of causes, but when talking siginificant earth quakes forget it.

I'm not even going to bother debating this one.

[pjclarke]

[DodgyAgent]

I do not know why you waste your time. No one concedes any ground to you on any of the climate change bo**ocks you write. Your left wing politics smack of hypocrisy yet you still peddle them and no one believes that you give a fig about anyone other than yourself.

I think a Jehovas witness would do better than you

[pjclarke]

It means CO2 can rise and fall significantly in a short space of time without destroying the world. It's not flat....as the Greenpeace news paper would have you believe.

No, it shows CO2 fluctuating more than in the ice core record, at the locations where the data were gathered, which as the proxy is tree leaf stomata, (think forests) may have more localised fluctuations quite naturally. You need to be 'sceptical' and adjust for that factor plus the error ranges before you make such a firm conclusion. The swings certainly seem to be larger than those shown at a global level since we started measuring CO2 directly.

Update: Discussion at Skeptical Science

[pjclarke]

I do not know why you waste your time.

Nor me. You can't carve rotten wood.