67 replies to this topic

[Setton]

Dale Ray, on 06 March 2011 - 02:24 PM, said:

This is more BS trying to make us think that Man is in control of this world when We are not. These lies come right from those Who want You to believe that a carbon tax is needed right now to stop Humans from using up the eco-systems-If Humans stops having Kids and stops using oil and stop taking in less air-then We save the world. So to save the world is to get rid of Humans. Then Why are We Here? This world was giving to Us by God not by People who think they are Gods that know the true scientific ways of Our world these want to be Gods did not make this this world , God did. So if Someone thinks they know more that God and are out to save Us and Our world from Humans and anyone who thinks He has this understanding I say to You that Human/s has to be insane.

We're not in control of this world but we do affect it. Given that God trusted us to look after it and we've quite impressively messed that up, can you really see a reason for Him to step in and save us when we can do it ourselves. Call me insane if you want; it doesn't change the facts. The climate is wariming up, fairly soon, it will rach a level which initiates a positive feedback cycle and the whole world will eventually become uninhabitable.

[Pretty Obscure]

Nope.jpg

[danielost]

Doug1o29, on 09 March 2011 - 07:14 PM, said:

Why?

Oklahoma is 1.33 degrees F. warmer than it was in 1975.  That's not something that's going to happen - it already happened.  What does that mean?  For one, our growing season is nearly two weeks longer than it was 35 years ago.  Two more weeks of chiggers if you work in the woods.  That means southern pine beetle epidemics in the eastern part of the state (The last hard spring freeze was in 2002; beetle broods have not been killed back since then.).  Beetle epidemics mean dead trees, which means fewer board feet to sell, which means landowners with less money in the bank, which means some college educations aren't going to happen.  That's what global warming is all about - your standard of living (and mine) is going to decline.

I attended the annual meeting of the Ecology Society of America in Pittsburgh last summer.  Over a thousand research papers were presented on topics related to global warming.  Among professional ecologists, there is no doubt that the earth is getting warmer.  The only doubters now are those who know nothing about ecology or climate - and those deliberately being misled by rightwing scare mongers who are trying to keep from being regulated.
Doug

i am not saying that climate change isnt happening.  i am just saying it isnt man made.  man may be helping it along, but we are not causing the climate to change.  this planet goes through climate change ever 300,000 years.  we are currently at the peak of that time period.  so in about 150,000 years we will be in another ice age.

[Br Cornelius]

danielost, on 10 March 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:

i am not saying that climate change isnt happening.  i am just saying it isnt man made.  man may be helping it along, but we are not causing the climate to change.  this planet goes through climate change ever 300,000 years.  we are currently at the peak of that time period.  so in about 150,000 years we will be in another ice age.

We could spend two pages explaining why that is an incorrect interpretation of the facts - but whats the point.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

Br Cornelius, on 10 March 2011 - 08:26 AM, said:

We could spend two pages explaining why that is an incorrect interpretation of the facts - but whats the point.

Br Cornelius

the point is it is not an incorrect interpretation.  it is one interpretation of the facts and you have yours.

climate change has been going on on this planet and in this solar system for 4 billion years.  why all of a sudden cant it take place without man causing it.

Edited by danielost, 10 March 2011 - 09:35 AM.

[BFB]

Humans have a lot of impact, to climate change. But so does the sun. Its wrong to conclude with 100& that humans are only to blame for climate change.
But in only 10-15 years time, we will know who really has the biggest impact on our climate. The Sun or Humans.

[lp21why]

danielost, on 10 March 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:

i am not saying that climate change isnt happening.  i am just saying it isnt man made.  man may be helping it along, but we are not causing the climate to change.  this planet goes through climate change ever 300,000 years.  we are currently at the peak of that time period.  so in about 150,000 years we will be in another ice age.

Those numbers are completely off, we actually go through climate change on a regular basis - it's only been roughly 14kyrs since the last glacial maximum, after that there was rapid warming called the Windermere Interstadial followed by rapid cooling in the Loch Lomond readvance. Before the last glacial period we had another interglacial (around 115kyrs ago), and another glacial before that, etc. This goes back about 2.6 million years.

The difference between the rapid warming 14k and 11kyrs ago and today is we aren't coming out of glacial conditions - ergo something is likely different.

[danielost]

lp21why, on 10 March 2011 - 10:49 AM, said:

Those numbers are completely off, we actually go through climate change on a regular basis - it's only been roughly 14kyrs since the last glacial maximum, after that there was rapid warming called the Windermere Interstadial followed by rapid cooling in the Loch Lomond readvance. Before the last glacial period we had another interglacial (around 115kyrs ago), and another glacial before that, etc. This goes back about 2.6 million years.

The difference between the rapid warming 14k and 11kyrs ago and today is we aren't coming out of glacial conditions - ergo something is likely different.

This article is about a generic geological period of temperature reduction. For the prehistoric era commonly referred to as the Ice Age, see Pleistocene
Pleistocene
The Pleistocene is the epoch from 2.588 million to 12,000 years BP covering the world's recent period of repeated glaciations. The name pleistocene is derived from the Greek and ....
(geology) or PaleolithicPaleolithicThe Paleolithic Age, Era or Period, is a prehistoric era distinguished by the development of the first stone tools, and covers roughly 99% of human technological history...
(archaeology).

An "ice age" or, more precisely, "glacial age" is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperatureTemperatureTemperature is a physical property that quantitatively expresses the common notions of hot and cold. Objects of low temperature are cold, while various degrees of higher temperatures are referred to as warm or hot....
of the EarthEarthEarth is the third planet from the Sun, and the densest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System. It is also the largest of the Solar System's four terrestrial planets...
's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheetIce sheetAn ice sheet is a mass of glacier ice that covers surrounding terrain and is greater than 50,000 km² , thus also known as continental glacier...
s, polar ice sheets and alpine glacierGlacierA glacier is a large persistent body of ice. Originating on land, a glacier flows slowly due to stresses induced by its weight. The crevasses and other distinguishing features of a glacier are due to its flow. Another consequence of glacier flow is the transport of rock and debris abraded from its...
s.


http://www.absolutea.../topics/Ice_age

(last time i checked there were still ice sheets on antarctica, greenland and parts of north america.  i am sure there are some on asia and europe.  lets not count the mountain ones.  in the lower 48 or in the alps or in india.


http://schools-wikip...2/13241.png.htm

this is a table dont know how to get it here so go look.

you will see that we are at the peak of the current warm period.  nore is the co2 lvls any higher today than they  have been in the past at those peaks.  well higher than some and the same with others.

[danielost]

looking at that chart it seems that it is the amount of dust in the air that affects cooling and heating.  when the dust lvls were up the temp was down and when the dust lvls were down temp was up.  so if we go by what you "man made climate change" people keep saying we need to throw a lot of dust in the air to get the temp down.  co2 and temp lvls follow the same pattern.

i was wrong the peaks are about 150,000 years apart not 300,000. sorry

Edited by danielost, 10 March 2011 - 11:23 AM.

[lp21why]

I am well versed with Quaternary climatic history, and much of your post was irrelevant.

Note that in the Vostok Ice core data, the peaks of CO2 concentration are at termination events. Compare that to the data for the Holocene period, we see a peak around 14kyrs after the termination. The concentrations in the core data reach no higher than around 290ppm, however current concentrations are at least 380ppm so CO2 levels are a lot higher today than in the past. Just see this link for current CO2 levels Current CO2

Your posts seem a tad contradictory, you imply that CO2 is in fact a factor in climate change - yet you imply that our output of CO2 is doing nothing to the climate.

[danielost]

lp21why, on 10 March 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

I am well versed with Quaternary climatic history, and much of your post was irrelevant.

Note that in the Vostok Ice core data, the peaks of CO2 concentration are at termination events. Compare that to the data for the Holocene period, we see a peak around 14kyrs after the termination. The concentrations in the core data reach no higher than around 290ppm, however current concentrations are at least 380ppm so CO2 levels are a lot higher today than in the past. Just see this link for current CO2 levels Current CO2

Your posts seem a tad contradictory, you imply that CO2 is in fact a factor in climate change - yet you imply that our output of CO2 is doing nothing to the climate.

where did i say we were not having an affect.  i said we are not causing it.  if you had bothered actually looking at the whole chart you would have noticed that about 330,000 years ago co2 was at least as high as it is today and maybe a little higher.  so tell me how in the world did we get that much co2 in the atmo at that time.



and you are like all of the other "man made climate change" people if the facts dont fit what your trying to sell then those facts arent important.

also looking at that chart again, the last peak.  the temps were higher than today and the co2 was lower.  so if co2 is what causes global warming tell me how can this fact be.

Edited by danielost, 10 March 2011 - 11:33 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

danielost, on 10 March 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

looking at that chart it seems that it is the amount of dust in the air that affects cooling and heating.  when the dust lvls were up the temp was down and when the dust lvls were down temp was up.  so if we go by what you "man made climate change" people keep saying we need to throw a lot of dust in the air to get the temp down.  co2 and temp lvls follow the same pattern.

i was wrong the peaks are about 150,000 years apart not 300,000. sorry

Most climate scientists who have a handle on aerosol and dust effects conclude that that is exactly what has been happening. The rates of global warming due to GHG have been severly attenuated by the dust and aerosols we have thrown up into the atmosphere.
The issue they point out is that temperature is linearly proportional to dust (ie increase dust by X and temperature will increase by the same proportion).
However GHG have a logarithmic impact which means that they start off with a slow impact, and then rapidly increase (increase GHG by X and temperature increases by a proportional amount of X*X).

Those who understand this mechanism have observed this relationship and have concluded that the cooling effect is now been swamped by the warming effects of GHG's.

The overall conclusion is that throwing more dust/aersols into the atmosphere cannot keep pace with the rise in GHG and is a dangerous and futile endeavour.

And on a side note - what do you attribute the current 100yr upward temperature trend to, and can you provide a proof of your likely candidate. It isn't enough to believe that something else is causing it, you need to prove it.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

Br Cornelius, on 10 March 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:

Most climate scientists who have a handle on aerosol and dust effects conclude that that is exactly what has been happening. The rates of global warming due to GHG have been severly attenuated by the dust and aerosols we have thrown up into the atmosphere.
The issue they point out is that temperature is linearly proportional to dust (ie increase dust by X and temperature will increase by the same proportion).
However GHG have a logarithmic impact which means that they start off with a slow impact, and then rapidly increase (increase GHG by X and temperature increases by a proportional amount of X*X).

Those who understand this mechanism have observed this relationship and have concluded that the cooling effect is now been swamped by the warming effects of GHG's.

The overall conclusion is that throwing more dust/aersols into the atmosphere cannot keep pace with the rise in GHG and is a dangerous and futile endeavour.

And on a side note - what do you attribute the current 100yr upward temperature trend to, and can you provide a proof of your likely candidate. It isn't enough to believe that something else is causing it, you need to prove it.

Br Cornelius

  

that isnt what the chart says.  the chart shows the opposite in fact,  the higher the dust the lower the temp.  now why would that be, maybe because the dust reflects the radiation away from the earth.  


another point i would like to make, i dont know if i can find this info to link to or not.  but the last 10,000 years has been the earths most stable climate ever.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.../clihis10k.html

Edited by danielost, 10 March 2011 - 11:44 AM.

[lp21why]

danielost, on 10 March 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

where did i say we were not having an affect.  i said we are not causing it.  if you had bothered actually looking at the whole chart you would have noticed that about 330,000 years ago co2 was at least as high as it is today and maybe a little higher.  so tell me how in the world did we get that much co2 in the atmo at that time.



and you are like all of the other "man made climate change" people if the facts dont fit what your trying to sell then those facts arent important.

also looking at that chart again, the last peak.  the temps were higher than today and the co2 was lower.  so if co2 is what causes global warming tell me how can this fact be.

If you had bothered to look at your own chart you will see 300kyrs ago the levels were around 250ppm. The highest on the chart appears to be during the Hoxnian interglacial and it reaches around 300ppm or thereabouts.

In answer to your question where did get all the CO2, it is possible that warming temperatures released vast amounts from permafrost on the seabed. Similar to the Clathrate Gun hypothesis.

[Br Cornelius]

danielost, on 10 March 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

that isnt what the chart says.  the chart shows the opposite in fact,  the higher the dust the lower the temp.  now why would that be, maybe because the dust reflects the radiation away from the earth.  


another point i would like to make, i dont know if i can find this info to link to or not.  but the last 10,000 years has been the earths most stable climate ever.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.../clihis10k.html

Charts are only as good as the understanding you have of what created the trends.

Br Cornelius