Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

AGW and rising sea levels

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 3rd January 2018, 22:42   #401
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
I hope this isn’t a reference to my NPD, Daphne. If so, shame on you!
Who the hell is "Daphne" ?!
I hope that isn't a reference to me .... if so, shame on you!

It's all rather NPD of you.

This thread should come with a warning of such at the start, lest poor innocent souls wandering in, looking to converse, or contribute positively, get bushwhacked ......



Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 3rd January 2018, 22:57   #402
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
......if I’d thought it material to the discussion.
Says the same guy (and side) who interject the obligatory..."so...do you believe the Earth is 5000 years old?" or.."did God instruct you to deny AGW?" rhetoric. Pathetic and immaterial.

More hypocrisy at its best.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd January 2018, 23:00   #403
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
Who the hell is "Daphne" ?!
I hope that isn't a reference to me .... if so, shame on you!

It's all rather NPD of you.

This thread should come with a warning of such at the start, lest poor innocent souls wandering in, looking to converse, or contribute positively, get bushwhacked ......



Chosun
Consider the source and shake it off, Juan.
It's obvious that there's room in Fug's head for more than one.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd January 2018, 23:33   #404
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTem View Post
OK thousands of years if you like - still the same point.
Copied from the article:

Quote:
Abstract: The Sun as climate driver is repeatedly discussed in the literature but proofs are often weak. In order to elucidate the solar
influence, we have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean G7 over the last
2000 years. The Fourier spectrum of G7 shows the strongest components as ~1000-, ~460-, and ~190 - year periods whereas other
cycles of the individual proxies are considerably weaker. The G7 temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, medieval, and
present optima as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age.
We have constructed by reverse Fourier
transform a representation of G7 using only these three sine functions, which shows a remarkable Pearson correlation of 0.84 with
the 31-year running average of G7.
The three cycles are also found dominant in the production rates of the solar-induced cosmogenic
nuclides 14C and 10Be, most strongly in the ~190 - year period being known as the De Vries/Suess cycle. By wavelet analysis, a new
proof has been provided that at least the ~190-year climate cycle has a solar origin
.
Your admission of "thousands of years" cycles is an order of magnitude below your original assertion; moreover, the article shows that ~1000, ~460, and ~190 yr. cycles alone account for r^2 = 70.5% of the G7 temperature proxy variance. So, that's roughly two orders of magnitude below your assertion, not even considering shorter ~60 yr. cycles, and well within one or two human lifespans.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Thursday 4th January 2018 at 04:24.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 3rd January 2018, 23:44   #405
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
Says the same guy (and side) who interject the obligatory..."so...do you believe the Earth is 5000 years old?" or.."did God instruct you to deny AGW?" rhetoric. Pathetic and immaterial.

More hypocrisy at its best.
Who will rid me of this turbulent yokel?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 3rd January 2018, 23:50   #406
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTem View Post
Indeed it has, and the causes are well-documented - the Milankovitch cycles is probably the best summary. Not keen on links as you know, but this one will do as (correctly in all scientific papers in my view) it also points out some of the flaws as well.

http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com/...e%20Causes.pdf

BUT all of this is completely irrelevant to the current topic of man-made AGW because it is on a completely different timescale. The climate in the past has always changed, has been much hotter, and much colder, BUT on cycles of tens of thousands of years.

What we are talking about is levels of CO2 that have changed in the last 50-100 years, and that are now 30% higher than they've been in the last 800,00 years.

So this is different - and carbon isotope measurement of the Co2 shows it is from a predominantly organic carbon source (like burning fossil fuels) not inorganic (from volcanic irruptions) - which have caused historic peaks.

So it is correct, but irrelevant, to say the Earth's climate has always changed. It in no way impacts the veracity or seriousness of current AGW and ocean acidification. An inconvenient truth indeed.

Hope this helps Chosun...
I'd defer to Elkcub's fine (earlier) posting...


".. In brief: ...That evidence includes a physical understanding of how carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere affect the planet’s temperature; evidence from past climates (in which carbon dioxide has served as a key planetary knob controlling temperature); and a stark record of ever rising concentrations of the atmospheric gas [CO2] that have been predictably accompanied by rising temperatures.
He (or they) ignorantly conceptualize climate as a closed-loop control system, with CO2 as the controlled variable (i.e., control "knob"). Unfortunately, rising concentrations of CO2 are not, and never have been, accompanied by rising planet temperatures. In the real world (as opposed to climate models), rising temperatures have always preceded CO2 rise by as much as 800 yrs., judging by the paleoclimate ice-core records. In any event, if these pompous "experts" were to opine what the ideal surface temperature should be everywhere on the planet, that would really help dedicated engineers to design a wonderful planetary control system — all of which is well beyond their kill set. For that noble objective to be implemented in the interest of humanity I'm sure we taxpayers wouldn't mind dredging up a few more billions of dollars for 'climate control engineering,' would we? I mean, it sounds like a really nice thing to do for future generations.

Ed
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd January 2018, 23:53   #407
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
Who the hell is "Daphne" ?!
I hope that isn't a reference to me .... if so, shame on you!

It's all rather NPD of you.
It sure is, Daphne, and there you go again, throwing my disability in my face! Have you no sense of decency, madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 3rd January 2018, 23:54   #408
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
Who will rid me of this turbulent yokel?
*laughing*......(seriously)
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 00:08   #409
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
*laughing*......(seriously)
You’re a cheery little soul, I’ll give you that. Pity about the rest. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 02:49   #410
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,629
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
Who the hell is "Daphne" ?!
You still haven't answered the question.

Regardless, care factor zero.
You are going to have to go and get your jollies elsewhere.

Let me make it crystal clear to you. Don't ever call me Daphne again, refer to me as such, obliquely or implicitly, or in any way associate me with the term or anything like it.

That's the line - you know what will happen if you cross it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
It sure is, Daphne, and there you go again, throwing my disability in my face! .....
Nobody is throwing your 'disability' in your face.

Your behaviour is pejorative and shameful in the extreme - Just because it is named Narcissistic Personality Disorder in no way makes it acceptable.

It is in no way disparaging to give BF members (and indeed the broader public who stumble upon your verbiage) a heads up as to your self-admitted nature and true intentions.



Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 07:28   #411
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
Now, now, calm down. You need to learn to roll with the punches and not let little things get to you in this way. In other words, follow my example. . ..
Chosun asked for quarter with the name calling, and conceded she never meant to intentionally throw any 'disability' in your face. And yet there you go again.

We may banter about here anonymously, but there are boundaries; and you've stepped way over the line.

Shameful.

Last edited by ClarkWGriswold : Friday 5th January 2018 at 15:29.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 08:07   #412
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTem View Post
Not by me.... and the far more reputable sources I have had personal access to mentioned above.

Disputed yes (isn't everything these days), but 'heavily'? ???
Hmmm.

Anyway I think when we get to the point where the empirical data and basic science is not a point of agreement then it becomes like a 'faith' argument - pointless. As fugl says above - a waste of breath (well typing anyway)

HNY

Mick
Yes, heavily disputed by heavyweights in the field. Here is the bio of the author of the attached article, which is very much worth reading.

Quote:
Biography of Tom Victor Segalstad
Born in Norway in 1949. University degrees (natural sciences with geology) from the University of Oslo. Has conducted university research, publishing, and teaching in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, USA. At present keeping a professional position as Associate Professor of Geochemistry at the University of Oslo, with responsibility for stable isotope geochemistry. He is past head of the Mineralogical-Geological Museum at the University of Oslo; and past Director of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo. He is a member of different international and national professional working groups and committees
Ed
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Carbon_cycle_update_Segalstad.pdf (530.4 KB, 20 views)
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 09:46   #413
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 763
A rebuttal of Segalstad's article by fellow Norwegian scientists:
https://forskning.no/meninger/kronik...-ikke-naturlig
https://forskning.no/meninger/kronik...-menneskeskapt
It's in Norwegian, but Google's translator does a decent job.

Sorry Ed, but there are no 'heavyweights in the field' disputing the causal relationship between greenhouse gas levels and global temperature.

P.S. Chosun I still have to get back to you on your pre-Christmas post regarding the IPCC summary...simply haven't had the time!

Cheers,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Thursday 4th January 2018 at 13:24.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 09:52   #414
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
It sure is, and there you go again, throwing my disability in my face! Have you no sense of decency, madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
I like your Marxian** allusion, but fear it has been missed elsewhere...
MJB

**Groucho, of course
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy

Last edited by ClarkWGriswold : Friday 5th January 2018 at 15:30.
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 15:23   #415
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
The guy asked for quarter with the name calling, and conceded he never meant to intentionally throw any 'disability' in your face. And yet there you go again.

We may banter about here anonymously, but there are boundaries; and you've stepped way over the line.

Shameful.
The “guy”?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 15:42   #416
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB View Post
I like your Marxian** allusion, but fear it has been missed elsewhere...
MJB

**Groucho, of course
Actually, “Welchian” (Joseph N. Welch) at the Army-McCarthy hearings, 1954. It was directed at the good senator and is thought to have marked a turning point in his fortunes, the beginning of the end. (but I somehow doubt that it will have anything like that effect on ******more’s the pity! ).

I am unfamiliar with a Marxian connection. What exactly is it?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by ClarkWGriswold : Friday 5th January 2018 at 15:30. Reason: Unable to follow simple request
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 20:38   #417
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
A rebuttal of Segalstad's article by fellow Norwegian scientists:
https://forskning.no/meninger/kronik...-ikke-naturlig
https://forskning.no/meninger/kronik...-menneskeskapt
It's in Norwegian, but Google's translator does a decent job.

Sorry Ed, but there are no 'heavyweights in the field' disputing the causal relationship between greenhouse gas levels and global temperature.

P.S. Chosun I still have to get back to you on your pre-Christmas post regarding the IPCC summary...simply haven't had the time!

Cheers,
Joost
My original statement in post #397 was: "Carbon isotope measurements of atmospheric CO2 are heavily disputed, as are CO2 longevity and ocean acidification." Although the two Norwegian articles you posted are interesting, they do little more than support my point that the issues are heavily disputed.

I would appreciate any real-world statistical evidence you may have, exclusive of circulation modeling results, which demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 is causally related to global temperature. Your reference to "Greenhouse gas levels" is too ambiguous as a scientific statement because greenhouse gasses are dominated by non-anthropogenic water vapor.

Thanks,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Friday 5th January 2018 at 05:15.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 22:06   #418
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 763
Sure, here you go:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

And this is a fun little article by my colleague Tom Anderson at the NOC, which gives an insight into the history of the CO2-temperature link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60932716300308

I can get the originals for you if you can't access them directly (curses be heaped on Elsevier and other publishers )

There's lots more out there but I'll entrust you to the powers of Google for that as it's bedtime here in the UK...

And @Litebeam you may want to consider this as your homework for the weekend (sorry couldn't resist a little joke based on your earlier post #385 )

Cheers,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Thursday 4th January 2018 at 22:12.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th January 2018, 23:07   #419
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Ha! Bluffs being called right and left. Elkcub, Chosun, litebeam. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 5th January 2018, 00:11   #420
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,455
Joost,

The 2015 letter to Nature certainly acknowledges the problem:
Quote:
...However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.
I would prefer if they had said 'measured temperature impact' rather than "radiative impact," as I'm looking for statistical evidence that global surface temperatures are causally changed by measured atmospheric CO2. In any event, you're correct, the full article would be needed to make a personal assessment.

Thanks,
Ed

I have several articles that review the history of the CO2 issue, and of course they differ. Litebeam, if you're interested ...
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Friday 5th January 2018 at 04:07.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 5th January 2018, 00:46   #421
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 544
Thanks, Ed. I'd certainly like to peruse if that data is easily accessed and shared.

Joost, I'll review your link as well....
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th January 2018, 09:21   #422
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
My original statement in post #397 was: "Carbon isotope measurements of atmospheric CO2 are heavily disputed, as are CO2 longevity and ocean acidification." Although the two Norwegian articles you posted are interesting, they do little more than support my point that the issues are heavily disputed.
I think you're (purposefully) misrepresenting the situation to the wider audience here Ed. These are the (translated) rebuttal conclusions:

"Segalstad's understanding of the atmospheric CO2 increase does not support the existing scientific literature:
(1) There is no known massive CO2 emission that can explain Beck's (2007) description that the atmospheric CO2 concentration between 1920 and 1945 increased by 110 ppmv,
(2) The theory of Endersbee (2008) that the atmospheric CO2 increase due to exhaust gas emissions is not consistent with what has been observed,
(3) Segalstad misinterprets the result of its isotopic calculations, and
(4) Segalstad's criticism of Olsen et al. (2006) is baseless."


That's not a 'heavy scientific dispute', that's slapping down someone who either hasn't done their homework properly, or is being purposefully misleading to an audience who knows less about the topic and trusts the author's authority.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
The 2015 letter to Nature certainly acknowledges the problem
And for those readers who didn't look beyond the quote selected in post #421, the authors of the paper then go on to provide empirical evidence to address the problem and conclude as follows:

"These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance."

The full paper is attached.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
I would prefer if they had said 'measured temperature impact' rather than "radiative impact,"
You will find plenty of discussion regarding radiative forcing and temperature in the paper (check especially the extended methods section at the end).

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
I'm looking for statistical evidence that global surface temperatures are causally changed by measured atmospheric CO2.
The second attached paper (Stips et al. 2016 Nature Scientific Reports) and the references cited therein should be of interest then, especially given your background in statistics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
I have several articles that review the history of the CO2 issue, and of course they differ. Litebeam, if you're interested ...
I'd be curious to see those as well if you don't mind sharing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Cross-correlation functions also show that CO2 typically lags temperature by ~600-800 yrs. This appalling oversight was most notable in Al Gore's famous VuGraph presentation ... and has never been corrected.
And finally, could you show me the relevant papers for this please? I presume they suggest the current steep rise in CO2 concentrations is caused by the Medieval Warm Period...?

Cheers,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Friday 5th January 2018 at 09:34.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th January 2018, 09:23   #423
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 763
Ugh...forgot the attachments :)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf nature14240.pdf (5.68 MB, 34 views)
File Type: pdf srep21691.pdf (1,016.8 KB, 20 views)
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th January 2018, 20:44   #424
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
More fossil carbon in the offing—

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/...shore-drilling
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 5th January 2018, 21:57   #425
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Ugh...forgot the attachments :)
Appreciate the attachments. Will respond later today.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rising Sun Sets in the South Farnboro John Cetaceans & Marine Life 3 Wednesday 2nd April 2014 19:49
Rising to the challenge (RSPB) BF Newsroom Latest news from the RSPB 0 Thursday 29th March 2012 15:58
Camera Insurance/rising prices simon Equipment Insurance 0 Thursday 22nd January 2009 19:59
Rising sea could end bittern boom (BBC News) BF Newsroom Live Bird News from around the World 12 Saturday 8th March 2008 08:57
Cormorants rising from the ashes.... Jos Stratford Birds & Birding 9 Tuesday 30th November 2004 14:17

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.29074407 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:47.