6th Mass Extinction Kicks Off

[Superman]

Did you see this in my post----> (relatively ​speaking)

The reason I qualified my question with that phrase is because it took over 30,000 years after the Yucatan event to kill off all the dinousars, some adapted in that time...what we now call birds for example. We and all the species on the planet will be LUCKY! EXTREMELY LUCKY if we get 300 years. No life except for bacteria can adapt to the changes coming that quickly.

That would be with the 300 year perfect storm taking place (pun intended) stop ALL emissions​​ now, start geo​-engineering, and carbon sequestration.

It's not ponticication, I know for a fact as you do we are not going to do all those things full tilt. We have about a ten year window, maybe and there is just no way.

did you post this using electricity? if so, YOU are the problem.
To solve it, stop posting bullshit.

 

[Steeltime]

did you post this using electricity? if so, YOU are the problem.
To solve it, stop posting bullshit.

And what about Elfie's CO2 emissions from breathing? She needs to stop that right now!!

 

[ark steel]

Wonder if they'll start printing T shirts "I survived the 6th mass extinction and all I got was this lousy shirt".

They will, but won't sell many because WE WILL ALL BE DEAD!!

I can't spend all my time educating you *************.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

 

[Ron Burgundy]

News reporting this morning that the North Pole ice cap has grown the past two years. Al Gore said it would be gone by now.

 

[SteelChip]

News reporting this morning that the North Pole ice cap has grown the past two years. Al Gore said it would be gone by now.

Al Gore should have been gone by now.

View attachment 481

 

[PoloMalo43]

So after the cataclysmic Yucatan meteor strike, it was 30,000 years, or about 3-4 times the length of known civilization, until extinction.

BUT, if we don't do carbon sequestration NOW we only have 300 years, or 1% of that time?

Do you even understand how ridiculous your illogical posts are?

Arrogance and ignorance are not a good mix for you Elfie.

I have no arrogance and some ignorance, stupidity and learning disability, however do define the word 'mix' when it comes to you. I can say that because I have dispatched you many times and like a true sadomasochist you can never get enough.

http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html

As unbelievable as it may sound, after having read through the five mass extinctions, the sixth mass extinction is in progress, now, with animals going extinct 100 to 1,000 times (possibly even 1,000 to 10,000 times) faster than at the normal background extinction rate, which is about 10 to 25 species per year. Many researchers claim that we are in the middle of a mass extinction event faster than the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/sixth-great-extinction-species-disappearing_n_5412571.html


World On Brink Of Sixth Great Extinction, Species Disappearing Faster Than Ever Before

WASHINGTON (AP) — Species of plants and animals are becoming extinct at least 1,000 times faster than they did before humans arrived on the scene, and the world on the brink of a sixth great extinction, a new study says.

The study looks at past and present rates of extinction and finds a lower rate in the past than scientists had thought. Species are now disappearing from Earth about 10 times faster than biologists had believed, said study lead author noted biologist Stuart Pimm of Duke University.

"We are on the verge of the sixth extinction," Pimm said from research at the Dry Tortugas. "Whether we avoid it or not will depend on our actions."

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

OMG, The HuffPost has spoken!!!!!!!!!!!! Run for the hills, run, run run!!!!

Next will be scientific analysis from Mother Jones, which will truly indicate that the Apocalypse is upon us...

 

[Ron Burgundy]

We and all the species on the planet will be LUCKY! EXTREMELY LUCKY if we get 300 years. No life except for bacteria can adapt to the changes coming that quickly.

That would be with the 300 year perfect storm taking place (pun intended) stop ALL emissions​​ now, start geo​-engineering, and carbon sequestration.

It's not ponticication, I know for a fact as you do we are not going to do all those things full tilt. We have about a ten year window, maybe and there is just no way.

No biggie, we'll just turn the A/C down a little lower.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I love your quote in your siggy PoloCommie! That guy must be brilliant...and witty to boot. Weird, though, you point to him as a professor. You realize he's no longer a professor, correct?

http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/

How Guy McPherson gets it wrong

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. Both malign the IPCC as “political” and therefore not objective. And both will cite nearly any claim that supports their views, regardless of source— putting evidence-free opinions on par with scientific research. (In one example I can’t help but highlight, McPherson cites a survivalist blog warning that Earth’s atmosphere is running out of oxygen.)

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.

Sounds like someone we know quite well, eh?

For the rest of you, please read this in entirety. A thing of beauty.

And that Guy McPherson, well darn...he's just so smart

 

[Vader]

As unbelievable as it may sound, after having read through the five mass extinctions, the sixth mass extinction is in progress, now, with animals going extinct 100 to 1,000 times (possibly even 1,000 to 10,000 times) faster than at the normal background extinction rate, which is about 10 to 25 species per year. Many researchers claim that we are in the middle of a mass extinction event faster than the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Species of plants and animals are becoming extinct at least 1,000 times faster than they did before humans arrived on the scene, and the world on the brink of a sixth great extinction, a new study says.

The study looks at past and present rates of extinction and finds a lower rate in the past than scientists had thought. Species are now disappearing from Earth about 10 times faster than biologists had believed, said study lead author noted biologist Stuart Pimm of Duke University.

"We are on the verge of the sixth extinction," Pimm said from research at the Dry Tortugas. "Whether we avoid it or not will depend on our actions."[/I]

**** me which is it? In the exact same article is says 10 times faster. Then early in the same article it says AT LEAST 1000 times faster. Then in the article before the last one it says 100 to a 1000 times but could be as high as 10,000 times. Do you have any idea the percentage ratios in the difference between 10 and 10,000? It's ridiculous and any scientist that claims that species are dying from 10 to 10,000 times faster should be fired for incompetency. That's not science that's people talking out of their *** with no scientific verification. Show me the data where species are dying at 10,000 times the rate. They can't or they wouldn't say "Possibly" or "many scientists claim". That's not science. That's bullshit. Nobody would ever take those huge disparities outside of climate science.

 

[Confluence]

**** me which is it? In the exact same article is says 10 times faster. Then early in the same article it says AT LEAST 1000 times faster. Then in the article before the last one it says 100 to a 1000 times but could be as high as 10,000 times. Do you have any idea the percentage ratios in the difference between 10 and 10,000? It's ridiculous and any scientist that claims that species are dying from 10 to 10,000 times faster should be fired for incompetency. That's not science that's people talking out of their *** with no scientific verification. Show me the data where species are dying at 10,000 times the rate. They can't or they wouldn't say "Possibly" or "many scientists claim". That's not science. That's bullshit. Nobody would ever take those huge disparities outside of climate science.

Vader, those are just orders of magnitude, silly.
It is not like it really matters, because no one really knows the rate of extinction previously; they can only infer, and then do the same for now, and then cry that the sky is falling (literally, the warm sky seems to have fallen into the deep sea for many of them). But I'll bet that the article was peer reviewed by a bunch of others studying the same incorrect extrapolations of **** data.

 

[PoloMalo43]

I love your quote in your siggy PoloCommie! That guy must be brilliant...and witty to boot. Weird, though, you point to him as a professor. You realize he's no longer a professor, correct?

http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/

How Guy McPherson gets it wrong



Sounds like someone we know quite well, eh?

For the rest of you, please read this in entirety. A thing of beauty.

And that Guy McPherson, well darn...he's just so smart

The irony is I used to dismiss McPherson as a doomsayer, the problem is, even though he is an outlier and was/is taking the almost worst case scenario, he is right. I don't agree with him that we'll all be dead in 22 years though.

I read that blog months ago and the problem with the author (who is a geologist) is that he is depending on climate science studies conservatism to be dead on. I don't know if he realizes it or not, but the models and hence part of the study methodology does not include feedbacks, the studies WAY underestimate the time scales for tipping points.

McPherson is living a life in tune with the planet as much as he can, That is a noble pursuit. Yes, I've known about McPherson for several years as far as his lectures and that he walked away from U of A.

The study didn't come from the Huff Post, it came from Duke University. One would think you would be able to discern the difference, but I put nothing past you guys in terms of shadiness in the defense of your indefensible position, or just plain ignorance.

 

[PoloMalo43]

**** me which is it? In the exact same article is says 10 times faster. Then early in the same article it says AT LEAST 1000 times faster. Then in the article before the last one it says 100 to a 1000 times but could be as high as 10,000 times. Do you have any idea the percentage ratios in the difference between 10 and 10,000? It's ridiculous and any scientist that claims that species are dying from 10 to 10,000 times faster should be fired for incompetency. That's not science that's people talking out of their *** with no scientific verification. Show me the data where species are dying at 10,000 times the rate. They can't or they wouldn't say "Possibly" or "many scientists claim". That's not science. That's bullshit. Nobody would ever take those huge disparities outside of climate science.

"Species are now disappearing from Earth about 10 times faster than biologists had believed"
In other words, before this new study.

You're twisting words around to suit your idea that people are just guessing.

It's biologists not climatologists who put that study out. The lower number(100x) is what has been verified over several years of studies on particular species, the larger estimate is for species that appear to be disappearing at an even faster rate but that rate has yet to be empirically verified.

So at our most conservative, is 100 times faster than the last die off enough to stir that head buried in the sand yet?

 

[Spike]

Dead starfish?

hahahahahahaha

 

[PoloMalo43]

"Species are now disappearing from Earth about 10 times faster than biologists had believed"
In other words, before this new study.

You're twisting words around to suit your idea that people are just guessing.

It's biologists not climatologists who put that study out. The lower number(100x) is what has been verified over several years of studies on particular species, the larger estimate is for species that appear to be disappearing at an even faster rate but that rate has yet to be empirically verified.

So at our most conservative, is 100 times faster than the last die off enough to stir that head buried in the sand yet?

I messed up actually the lower # is 1000 as the information in the first link is from 2011 and as it states in the second article this new(2014) study shows that the rate is 10 times what was previously believed.

So I guess my question should have been:

So at our most conservative, is 1000 times faster than the last die off enough to stir that head buried in the sand yet?

Same difference though because our hearing is logarithmic, so I know this will fall on ears that won't notice a difference anyway.

 

[Vader]

I messed up actually the lower # is 1000 as the information in the first link is from 2011 and as it states in the second article this new(2014) study shows that the rate is 10 times what was previously believed.

So I guess my question should have been:

So at our most conservative, is 1000 times faster than the last die off enough to stir that head buried in the sand yet?

Same difference though because our hearing is logarithmic, so I know this will fall on ears that won't notice a difference anyway.

No your question should be are you stupid enough to believe stats that range from 1000 to 10,000 times without ANY EVIDENCE. Show me the evidence of 10,000 times faster. They can't show it so they "believe" it. It's bullshit. Those type of ranges are ridiculous. They started at 10 and within a couple of years went from that to 1000 OR 10,000 of course they aren't sure which because their data sets are bullshit. Just like your stupid "head in the sand" ****. Go back to the sandbox little boy and let the adults do the talking.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The irony is I used to dismiss McPherson as a doomsayer, the problem is, even though he is an outlier and was/is taking the almost worst case scenario, he is right. I don't agree with him that we'll all be dead in 22 years though.

I read that blog months ago and the problem with the author (who is a geologist) is that he is depending on climate science studies conservatism to be dead on. I don't know if he realizes it or not, but the models and hence part of the study methodology does not include feedbacks, the studies WAY underestimate the time scales for tipping points.

McPherson is living a life in tune with the planet as much as he can, That is a noble pursuit. Yes, I've known about McPherson for several years as far as his lectures and that he walked away from U of A.

The study didn't come from the Huff Post, it came from Duke University. One would think you would be able to discern the difference, but I put nothing past you guys in terms of shadiness in the defense of your indefensible position, or just plain ignorance.

The problem with your approach is that you put merit into a guy they call "Professor" who is no longer a professor, who was previously a professor Ecology. Second, you can dismiss Scott Johnson because he's a Geologist, but likewise, you'd have to dismiss McPherson because he's an Ecologist.

Fact remains, McPherson isn't using science. But he is singing your tune, so he's believable.

http://planet3.org/2014/03/13/mcphersons-evidence-that-doom-doom-doom/

Fortunately, he is both completely out of his depth and wrong. It’s about time he got challenged by people with the scientific ammunition to stand up to him.

A good start on taking down Guy McPherson appeared recently by Scott Johnson at Fractal Planet...

I agree completely. McPherson is not the opposite of a denialist. He is a denialist, albeit of a different stripe. To watch him at work and to watch Tony Watts is to watch birds of a feather. Not evidence-based policy but policy-based evidence. Not part of the solution. Part of the problem...

McPherson’s Claims to be a Scientist Fail

In one respect, credentials, McPherson trumps Watts. Apparently he once was faculty, albeit in a non-physical science.

The Ph.D. impresses some people; those of us who have jumped that hurdle know that the population of Ph.D.’s is rich with brilliance, but also rich with charlatanry. Actually anyone who has a degree must have suspected. Remember some of your more bizarre professors?

A doctorate really only proves you’re eccentric and dogged; whether you are actually talented or not remains to be seen. The proportion of talent among Ph.D.s is high, but it’s nowhere near 100%.

So we must ask whether McPherson’s claim to be a scientist based on an actual grasp of what science is and how it is conducted, or (like certain other prominent professor-bloggers of our acquaintance) whether he has merely pro forma credentials?

I say the latter.

This is another, long and thorough take down of this whack job. Feel free to read in entirety.

The guy's a fraud, he's a doomsdayer, he doesn't use science, and he's flat out wrong on the basis of science.

It's so much fun being in the defensible, and correct position. You keep on kneeling and worshiping at the feet of nut jobs like McPherson. It is so very apropos. Now, we'll wait for you to attempt to discredit this author, as you did Johnson, while over looking the fact that McPherson is a complete and total fraud. Oh the joy of watching you try to discredit others while defending this nut-job.

 

[ark steel]

Well, if it will be within 10 years, I can run up all my credit cards, but if it is 10,000 years, I should be more frugal.

Can someone narrow that down for me, please?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Well, if it will be within 10 years, I can run up all my credit cards, but if it is 10,000 years, I should be more frugal.

Can someone narrow that down for me, please?

I think it depends on your level of paranoia Ark. If you're a left wing Chicken Little-screaming, UFO-spotting, believing-in-Big Foot, Area 67 believing, ghost-hunter loon, run those Credit Cards up.

If you're rational and realize that all of this is policy-driven hysteria around money, money that make the Koch brothers look like paupers, well then...be frugal in your spending. My advice.

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

Run up those credit cards bro, Obama is gonna target those evil ******** next. Bought too much home and cannot afford it? Banks fault. Went to Liberal University and got a womens studies degree and cannot afford the student loans? Evil capitalists fault. Ran up your credit cards and now cannot afford milk and bread? Capital One's fault.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Run up those credit cards bro, Obama is gonna target those evil ******** next. Bought too much home and cannot afford it? Banks fault. Went to Liberal University and got a womens studies degree and cannot afford the student loans? Evil capitalists fault. Ran up your credit cards and now cannot afford milk and bread? Capital One's fault.

Cool. I'm ahead of the game.

 

[21STEELERS21]

The bright side of an extinction would be it would finally prove God doesn't exist. Well, at least until human life returns and someone writes a new Bible.

I hope the new Bible has a happier ending. Wish I could read it.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

The bright side of an extinction would be it would finally prove God doesn't exist. Well, at least until human life returns and someone writes a new Bible.

I hope the new Bible has a happier ending. Wish I could read it.

Pick up the Bible we already have. It tells how things are going to end. Things in the middle east are playing out exactly like the Bible predicts.

 

[PoloMalo43]

The problem with your approach is that you put merit into a guy they call "Professor" who is no longer a professor, who was previously a professor Ecology. Second, you can dismiss Scott Johnson because he's a Geologist, but likewise, you'd have to dismiss McPherson because he's an Ecologist.

Fact remains, McPherson isn't using science. But he is singing your tune, so he's believable.

http://planet3.org/2014/03/13/mcphersons-evidence-that-doom-doom-doom/








This is another, long and thorough take down of this whack job. Feel free to read in entirety.

The guy's a fraud, he's a doomsdayer, he doesn't use science, and he's flat out wrong on the basis of science.

It's so much fun being in the defensible, and correct position. You keep on kneeling and worshiping at the feet of nut jobs like McPherson. It is so very apropos. Now, we'll wait for you to attempt to discredit this author, as you did Johnson, while over looking the fact that McPherson is a complete and total fraud. Oh the joy of watching you try to discredit others while defending this nut-job.

Yeah, I never quoted nor do I claim to use McPherson as a source for anything , I merely liked the denier quote and put it in my sig.
No climate scientist would ever(that I know of) call a denier stupid, that is counter productive. I'm not aiming at productivity so I can.

As far as UFO's or Bigfoot and any other such nonsense; it's conservatives who tend to believe in stuff like that, you know since most of them already believe in devils, angels, hippies that do magic tricks. Crap like that.


"kneeling and worshiping at the feet of nut jobs like McPherson" REALLY? I'll remind you of that next time one of you post something from Watts(which should be in about 3 minutes). Like I said I don't worship nor do I even use McPherson as a source for anything I post or read for that matter.

Not a very good attempt at a straw man on your part but I don't expect much from you so it's all good. The sad thing is all the effort you put into making false claims and even researching it, all to be left holding an empty bag in the end....

As far as having to be a climate scientist to make a statement about deniers...... no.