skippy

It is hard to say with a great deal of accuracy, largely because a significant percentage of the species which have become exctinct either naturally or anthropogenically have not actually been discovered and recorded yet. Just to give you a rough indication, an article published in 'Nature' in 2000 had some interesting but troubling insights; About two-thirds of all species occur in the tropics, largely in the tropical humid forests. These forests originally covered between 14 million and 18 million square kilometres, depending on the exact definition, and about half of the original area remains. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/full/403843a0.html In terms of current numbers: The 'Holocene' extinction as it is known is the largest extinction event in 65 Million years. The current rate of extinction is said to be between 30,000 and 100,000 species per year. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Ongoing-Holocene-Extinction&id=531079

Look, here is my one and only problem with AGW skeptics. They seem to just pick out minor flaws in data or literature and jump up and down saying that it discredits the entire notion of anthropogenic warming. Skepticism is essential in science, but purposely creating confusion among politicians and the public by using baseless criticisms in the face of a global catastrophe does not do anybody any good. It is fine to criticise the data, but do everybody a favour and provide evidence.

Be so kind as to briefly 'walk me through' how cyclical oscillations (I think you are referring to Milankovich cycles) coincide with the trends of modern warming?? I tend to believe that organisations such as the IPCC and NASA would not have taken these factors into account when presenting their findings. If you are referring to oceanographic cycles such as ENSO, Indian Ocean Dipole, Southern Annular Mode, Meridional Overturning Circulation (thermohaline circulation), Im sorry but they have already been reconciled and taken into account aswell. These cycles are also being affected by warming. I also find it hard to believe that the recent rapid warming and acidifying of the planet's oceans is occurring due to natural phenomena. Like I said before, I am all ears. Please be so kind as to give me some brief dot points as so what natural phenomena is causing this warming if not GHG's. That is all I ask. So you are denying the credibility of well-accepted palaoclimate proxy methods? Its funny how the same methodologies used to reconstruct past climates (foraminifera/deep sea sediments, Isotopic fractionation, Ice core proxies, dendroclimatology etc) which have always been accepted as relaible sources of palaoclimatic evidence are suddenly 'unreliable' when there are huge profits at stake. The skeptic's arguments continue to get weaker and weaker every time I look at forums such as this.

Volcanically derived soils are usually more fertile, but not always. Parent material is a significant factor when it comes to soil fertility. Soils which are derived from, or are on a basaltic base tend to be more fertile and ideal for certain types of farming, whereas soils which are derived from and/or ontop of a sedimentary base such as sandstone are usually less arable. This has alot to do with drainage and the soils ability to retain moisture, minerals and essential elements such as N and P. Basalt is relatively impermeable in comparison to most sedimentary rocks, so minerals are not leached as easily. However, even the most fertile volcanic soils can be degraded by erosion, leaching, over irrigation, salinity, vegetation removal etc..

do you know where it came from/what sort of environment it was found in??? That might be able to narrow it down a bit for you..

We can all agree that there is roughly 90% certainty of the existence of anthropogenic warming. If 90% of the worlds best doctors told me that I have cancer because of smoking, I would tend to believe them. However this situation is different because uncertainty is much easier to manufacture than certainty, especially because there are enormous profits at stake.. If anybody wants to tell me right now (with evidence) that natural phenomena is causing modern warming and sea level rise then I am all ears.. However, I know I will just be given poor criticisms of well accepted methods of climate and palaoclimate science, and nothing concrete to base any inference of natural modern warming on.

People want to discredit global warming because of the potential economic impacts it will have. Proper science comes from criticism of beliefs,, but it is only useful is proper evidence is supplied. To date I have still not come across one skeptic who has been able to provide evidence that natural phenomena is causing the modern warming. Plus, this goes beyond people's love of the environment and the outdoors,, being proper custodians of the planet is essential to our very survival.. *Fixed