0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I dont have a lot of time right now, as I have class in about 15 minutes, but I can provide evidence...lots of it. Ive spent the last few years collecting resources, so this will not be nearly comprehensive. I can also do a little better than 70 years...I can go back more than 400,000 years, and establish a very long trend. Ill start with the landmark paper by Gerard Bond. This particular paper doesnt equate temperature specifically, but it does relate North Atlantic ice rafted debris (IRD) events to solar activity over the past 12,000 years. IRD events are caused by glacial calving in Greenland, Iceland, and Northern Canada during times of marked glacial growth (cooling events). As the icebergs calve and spread into the N Atlantic, they carry LOTS of sediment within them that are dropped into the ocean when they melt. The latitude and concentrations of these glacial sediments in the oceanic cores can tell us a lot about sea temperatures and the extent of glaciation/sea ice.The citation for the paper is:Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S.,Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I., Bonani, G., 2001. Persistent solar influence on NorthAtlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294 (5549), 2130–2136.I encourage you to look it up and read it if you can. If you cant find it, let me know and I will email it to you. Bond is a very well respected geologist/climatologist and is considered among the giants in the field. This paper alone has been cited over 700 times, and this is not even including his works helping to lay the foundations of plate tectonics during the 60's and 70's. Anyway...enough adoration The black lines are abundances of different IRD sediments in oceanic cores (all originating from different areas of the N Atlantic). The blue lines are 14C concentrations taken from tree rings chronologies if I remember correctly, and the red lines are 10Be concentrations from Greenland ice cores (both proxies for solar activity)I have much more to post on shorter and longer time scales if you would like to see it in the future.
I thought I didn't care about disputing with you 'skeptics' anymore but.Ah well, changed my mind
And don't tell me it's humbug. We both know that this is one of the guys making the paper you cite.
I doubt you are a biggot even though that was unfortunately implied by your post.
As for broken records. I confess. I don't take these CO2 concerns seriously for several reasons.
nothing meaningful will be done to reduce CO2 emissions until both China and India become prosperous enough to consider alternatives.
...there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why.
The most serious threat to life is the inevitable next Ice Age.
pepper - "Quote ...there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why." Okay, I'll indulge you. How many times has this 'cycle' been repeated?from the other side)."
emails hacked from the Director of University of East Anglia
What Damage? All industrial nations have cleaner environments now then at any time in the last many hundreds of years.
Reducing CO2 from industrial societies is little more then self-flagelation
It is not yet known whether it is a true cycle, or an internal response from the climate system, but the period actually has a somewhat wide range in error at 1500 +/- 500 years.
Flagelation? The industrial world can begger itself back to huddling in caves without fire at all while India and China, about half the world population(?), build thousands of coal plants without even modern SO2 scrubbers. Its entirely pointless. Farting into a hurricane.
First, what do you mean by "internal response"?
Second, a fifty percent error margin - how can anything be analysed or predicted from that? And even that assumes that the extrapolation for the core samples is valid.Thirdly, let's just say, for arguments sake that this analysis is right on the money, what does it give us as a prediction of future climate trends? Does it indicate in any good-science way a climate maxima is happening?
What I meant by "internal response" is the climate system reacting to a number of forcing agents that just happen to culminate about every 1500 years rather than a direct response to a single (or a few) forcing agents.
*If* solar activity is the main forcing agent for these events, as well as the cooling and warming events during the Holocene, it would be expected that the very high solar activity of the past 150 years or so would produce a climate optimum. Even if this is proven the case (which could take many more years of research) that still does not mean that *all* of the warming being experienced is from natural sources.
So, if my understanding is correct, this very general climate trend could either be related to some sort of long-term variation in energy input (most likely solar) OR a purely climatic feedback loop of one kind or another (I.E. influenced by many factors perhaps including northern sea salinity cycles).
I'm sure you would agree that the single outstanding conclusion that we can draw from this sea ('scuse the pun!) of observation and analysis is that our world's climate approaches one of the most complex and hard-to-predict systems Man has to deal with.
There is, at the same time, some very fundamental aspects that affect our atmosphere. They include very well understood chemical interactions, including the spectral absorption of atmospheric gases. It just seems foolish in the extreme to add Our own random impacts to a system we are still in the infancy of understanding.
Even the most direct sampling from ice cores, etc seem to give a far from decisive image about what the Earth's climate looked like in any one period.
It would seem folly to claim as anything more than conjecture that this ambiguous evidence points to more than a bit-part for solar variation in the overall climate history.
Under the current circumstances of our known impact, I hope it will take a great deal more proof than this for any scientist working in the field.
After finals are over I can begin posting the larger body of evidence.
When you are talking about radiative properties of GH gases, I take it you mean their emission spectrum. I would be surprised if those data are not easily found... I will start by Googling it...
IN GENERALClimatologist and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the last decade of plantetary cooling.
Hi Kartsten,I understand Indians [from India] do a lot of loud farting, and may actually be a sort of status symbol for being well fed. Cows and other ungulant animals are WAY good at this. Thus the term 'Holy Cow'. I believe some people support various types of vegetarianism in order to cut down on cow methane. On the otherhand, trash dumps have become so technically efficient that methane is sometimes harvested from rotting trash. Further, human farts are also ignitable. As a college freshman we tried to convince one of our room mates of this. He was skeptical but agreed to lay back on the lower bunk, put his feet on the underside of the upper bunk, while we held a butane lighter in the proper location.He really let one go resulting in a perfect six or seven inch blue flame. This scared the living hell out of him and he ran from the room like, well, his butt was on fire, and quenched it all in the shower nearby. One of the better stories of my long accademic life.....
IN GENERALClimatologist and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the last decade of plantetary cooling. The guys in Bolder Colorado seem entirely perplexed by all the snow shoveling that has come their way. The actual words they use are something like 'inexplicable'. Perhaps they used the word 'travesty' or some such to describe climate modeling failures.It does not matter much. The CO2 guys are looking more and more like Pope Urban whats his number and Galaleo. My quess is these maniacs are PRAYING for more signs of warming. Unhappily I hope for the same. The alternative is cooling, famine, pestulance, and all that comes with cold climates.Who woulda thought....
So the decline he was hiding was from temp data based on tree rings from 1960 onwards.
Christopher Johnson - You wrote: "What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?" The long and the short of it is that not one single human on the entire planet has even the smallest clue.
I await in quiet anticipation.
I am unaware of any dangerous runaway condition.
the planet was TEAMING with life at CO2 levels of 2,500 ppm
It is not only the level of CO2 that is a problem, but the rate at which it is increasing. Slow increases like those that have occured in history give life time to evolve and adapt, and ocean chemistry to buffer against ph decrease, but at the current rate this will be alot more difficult.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/09/2510699.htmQuoteDr Howard says that over time, the ocean may be able to counteract acidity by dissolving accumulated shells of dead marine organisms on the ocean floor, thus raising ocean pH and its ability to take up CO2.But he says this will take a long time and come at the cost of living marine organisms."The buffering mechanisms in the ocean are quite slow compared to the rate at which we are putting fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere and into the ocean.," he said.http://www.coralcoe.org.au/news_stories/coralfutures.htmlQuote“When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htmQuoteNew calculations made by marine chemists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) suggest that low-oxygen "dead zones" in the ocean could expand significantly over the next century. These predictions are based on the fact that, as more and more carbon dioxide dissolves from the atmosphere into the ocean, marine animals will need more oxygen to survive.
Dr Howard says that over time, the ocean may be able to counteract acidity by dissolving accumulated shells of dead marine organisms on the ocean floor, thus raising ocean pH and its ability to take up CO2.But he says this will take a long time and come at the cost of living marine organisms."The buffering mechanisms in the ocean are quite slow compared to the rate at which we are putting fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere and into the ocean.," he said.
“When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.”
New calculations made by marine chemists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) suggest that low-oxygen "dead zones" in the ocean could expand significantly over the next century. These predictions are based on the fact that, as more and more carbon dioxide dissolves from the atmosphere into the ocean, marine animals will need more oxygen to survive.
In recorded history we have Britain exporting drinkable wine in the Roman Era with CO2 level lower then now;
Warm is good, cold is bad.....
And concerning the advantages and disadvantages of global warming (from http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm )Advantages:Agriculture * Bumper crops in high latitude countries like Greenland, Canada * Higher rice yields in Northern ChinaHealth * Fewer deaths from cold exposure * Record profits for pharmaceutical companiesArctic Melt * Shippers get an Arctic shortcut between Atlantic and Pacific * Access to North Pole oil (hmm, good or bad?) * Thriving mammoth tradeEnvironment * Greener rainforests due to higher sunlight levels due to fewer rain clouds * Animals in Greenland can graze longer * Save grey nurse sharks from extinctionGlacier Melt * Access to more mining areas as Greenland's glaciers recede * New extreme sport of glacier surfing (riding waves when chunks of glaciers fall into the sea) * Longer grazing for sheep in GreenlandEconomical * Increased summer movie box office * Lots of work and money for lawyers (not sure which column to put this one in)Disadvantages:Agriculture * China's grain harvest will be cut by 5 to 10% by 2030 * Africa's food production will be halved by 2020. * Decelerating tropical forest growth * Increased conflict over resources * Dislocate millions (with subsequent economical and military ramifications) - an estimated 50 million by 2010 * Coral reefs are dissolving due to CO2 turning seawater acidic and bleaching due to warmer waters * Increase of wildfire activity * Water shortages in the Mediterranean, flash floods along the Rhine and summers so hot that nuclear power stations can't cool down, more than half of Europe's plant species could risk extinction by 2080 according to EU paper * Increased range and severity of crop disease * Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing * Diminishing fresh water supplies for coastal communities * Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007) * Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008) * Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)Health * Increased deaths to heatwaves (5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps) * Increases in malnutrition and consequent disorders, with implications for child growth and development. * Increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts. * Spread of malaria into wider regions * Increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground level ozone related to climate change. * Spread of mosquito vectors and dengue fever in Singapore. * Spread of dengue fever throughout the Americas. * Increased pollen levels (due to more CO2) leading to increased allergies * Increased spread of flesh eating disease * More heart problemsArctic Melt * Decrease in Arctic albedo, further accelerating warming * Loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years * Positive methane feedbacks from mammoth dung (you can't make this stuff up) * Melting of Arctic lakes leading to positive feedback from methane bubbling. * Icebergs risk to shipping * Rising sea levels due to melting land ice over Greenland and CanadaEnvironment * Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier (from the 'greener rainforests' study) * Encroaching deserts displacing tens of millions * Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem * Vanishing lakes * Tibetan plateau warming at twice the global average, so that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline * Skinny whales (I always thought they stood to lose some weight) * Acidification of the ocean that violate EPA standards for ocean quality, threatening ocean ecosystems (eg - harming coral and plankton) * Threatened extinction of British shellfish * Gradual extinction of leeches (someone's gotta love em) * Dwindling penguin numbers * Disappearance of the low-lying island country Tuvalu * Disruption to New Zealand aquatic species * Oxygen poor ocean zones are growing (Stramma 2008, Shaffer 2009) * Increased mortality rates of healthy trees in Western U.S. forest (more...) * More severe and extensive vegetation die-off due to warmer droughts (Breshears 2009)Glacier Melt * Flooding of low lying Asian rice fields * Water supply cut off for China and South AmericaEconomical * Billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure * Reduced water supply in New MexicoSo either you really really like Grey Nurse sharks, or you haven't really weighed up the pros and cons.
you seem to have a very limited range of thought on these topics.
Frankly, you seem to have chosen dozens and dozens of catastrophic events pulled out an an algore hat.
Specifically, you claim Tuvalu will actually disappear. I have posted on this same topic for the Maldives citing specialists:
Further, the recent Climate Gate scandals have simply diminished the entire effort.
Human history IMHO, has flourished during times of warming and suffered mightily when it got cooler. Not to mention when it really got into Cold Ice Ages.
Quote from: litespeed on 12/11/2009 18:37:02I also have a general predilection for warm anyway. My general point is human civilization does better in warmer times such as The Roman Era and the Midieval Warming, and does less well when weather cools. Such as late Roman Times, the post Midieval Warming period [famine, plaque and general mischief) etc.Your general point is invalid considering we are in vastly different times to the romans, and more is at stake now. What was good for maybe a hundred million romans may be different to what's good for 6.7 billion odd people today.
I also have a general predilection for warm anyway. My general point is human civilization does better in warmer times such as The Roman Era and the Midieval Warming, and does less well when weather cools. Such as late Roman Times, the post Midieval Warming period [famine, plaque and general mischief) etc.
And, as I have already demonstrated, increased CO2 from fossil fuels is inevitable anyway. China already may be the most prolific CO2 emitter and is building coal plants at the rate of about one per week.
I have already posted URLs showing plants flourish with 500 ppm CO2. The dynosaurs flourished with 2,500ppm.
And, as I have already demonstrated, increased CO2 from fossil fuels is inevitable anyway.
If you're refering to the medieval warm period, that was a regional effect, not a global effect.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Periodhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
Chlorofloricarbons and SO2 may be among those industrial products and by-products that should be kept in check. Interestingly, the Electric Utility industry initially bellyached SO2 scrubbers would be expensive. This may actually be true. However, the resultant product from said scrubbing turns out to have a market value of its own. If I am not mistaken, it is used in road construction.
China, and soon India, will be almost the entirety of these issues. I do not know if China installs SO2 scrubbers, but I doubt it. And I don't know if R-12 is still produced outside the US. However, the industrialized nations are entirely impotent in this regard. The very idea of borrowing money from China for climate reparations to Zimbabwe while China builds one or two coal plants per week belongs on Saturday Night Live.
IMHO, there is only one option available for the GW crew. They need to jump out of the box and begin thinking about ways to cool the planet, because there is no way in living hell they are going to reduce CO2 emissions in the next 50 years at least. Further, the technologies to do so do not appear all that difficult to me, as I have posted elsewhere.
Plant life has also flourished at around 350ppm during the Carboniferous period.
CO2 itself is not a pollutant, but there are a number of other pollutants created that are associated with industrialization and anthropogenic CO2 that should be kept in check.
The regionality of the Medieval Warm Period was used to explain the lack of temperature variability in the hockey stick graphs when compared to the previous IPCC work.
pepper - You are a good adversary. However, you wrote: "...the engine house of a large, complex machine that appears to be slowly, but surely heading for a runaway condition."
Fret - You are one of the few serious persons here about.
You are a Silly Little Name Caller.
PS: We all know the term 'denier' is an epithet. Like holocaust denier. The proper term is skeptic.
BenV - You wrote: "You say that warming isn't happening..."ANSWER: Clearly the climate has warmed since The Little Ice Age. What else would you expect after an ice age of any sort. According to the hockey stick guys, the climate has been on a straight up increase ever since. However, significant industrial age CO2 is primarily a 20th century phenomena. According, the increase should in no way be linear since much of it happened in the 1800s prior to the massive CO2 emissions of, particularly, the last half of the 20th Century. IMHO, the hockey stick guys tried to pull a fast one.And yes, we are in a climate optimum which I believe is a good thing. However, since the GW maniacs are both a menace and a nuisance, I simply point out to them the climate can be cooled in a variety of ways I have mentioned and referenced. That simply means the hysterical GW crowd is myopic, and not very intellectually active.You also wrote: "...you're a climate change denier." You are a Silly Little Name Caller. You bore me. Go light a candle or two at East Anglia. Then genuflect.
yor_on - You wrote: "To me it's about being scared, really scared."Scared about what, precisely? (...)