Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

User avatar
CVX
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:00 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by CVX »

All I can say is: duh!

Hundreds of thousands of years worth of climate records in ice cores show there is nothing unusual in a global warming trend over the past 25 years.



Marine geophysicist Bob Carter, a professor at Queensland's James Cook University and leading climate change sceptic, said the effects of human activity would barely register in the long-term history of climate change.



He told The Weekend Australian that ice cores from Antarctica "tell us clearly that in the context of the meteorological records of 100 years, it is not unusual to have a period of warming like the one we are in at the moment".



Dr Carter disputed the theory that human activity was making a current - natural - warm period hotter: "Atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change." He argues that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation".



Fellow sceptic William Kininmonth, a former director of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, agreed. He wrote in a 2004 book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard that there was "every reason to believe that the variabilities in global temperature and other climate characteristics experienced over the past century are part of the natural variability of the climate system and are not a consequence of recent anthropogenic activities".



But other leading scientists, who blame human activity for climate change, say the "denialists" are a one-to-99 minority.



Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, said: "There is no debate. The debate is over." The evidence that human activity had increased emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to natural warming, was "overwhelming", he said.



For scientist and University of Adelaide academic Tim Flannery there was also no argument: humans had turned up the heating and only humans could keep a lid on it. The argument that human activity did not contribute to global warming was "not a credible hypothesis to build policy on", he said.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_pa

ge/0,5744,17752119%255E601,00.html
User avatar
Blackjack
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:36 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Blackjack »

Duh! to the planet naturally going through alternating warm and cool phases, I think.
User avatar
Blackjack
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:36 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Blackjack »

We need a gay pirate movie too.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Bill Sikes »

CVX wrote: Hundreds of thousands of years worth of climate records in ice cores show there is nothing unusual in a global warming trend over the past 25 years.

(snip)



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_pa

ge/0,5744,17752119%255E601,00.html


Now: http://icharrow.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm ... _page.html

Ten years to climate meltdown (Sep 4 2006)



A climate change timebomb may be just 10 years away from detonating, according to the latest global warming evidence.

New data from a deep ice core drilled out of the Antarctic permafrost reveal a shocking rate of change in carbon dioxide concentrations.

The core, stretching through layers dating back 800,000 years, contains tiny bubbles of ancient air that can be analysed.

Scientists who studied the samples found they left no doubt as to the extent of the build-up of greenhouse gases.

For most of the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels had remained at between 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm) of air. Now they are at 380ppm.

In the past, it had taken 1,000 years for carbon dioxide to rise by 30ppm during natural warming periods. According to the new measurements, the same level of increase has occurred in just the last 17 years.



Isotopic tests confirmed that the recent carbon dioxide had come from fossil fuel sources and must be due to human activity.



Dr Eric Wolff, from the British Antarctic Survey, who presented the findings at the BA Festival of Science in Norwich, said: "The rate of change is the most scary thing.



"We really are in a situation where something's happening that we don't have any analogue for in our records.



"It's an experiment we don't know the result of."
User avatar
Elouise
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:02 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Elouise »

Antartic community of scientists from two countries, just about 3 years ago, stated in a TV special of that Continent's melting ice; it was unprecedented in the history of the earth based on their studies past the determinations of the Ice Ages. The damn thing's melting.

They weren't flippant when they said Florida based on their sea level landscape needs to eventually evacuate and the inundation would not be insidious. :-3
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

Someone once likened the current environmental situation to sitting on an airplane...looking out the window before take-off.

You see a bolt fall out of the wing. No biggie, right?....little bolt, no problem! Then another falls...and another and another and another.

At some point, you realize that ONE MORE BOLT might be the one which causes the loss of the wing.....

And the plane backs away from the terminal....



I've heard/seen people deny the human place in climate degradation for a couple of decades. There's no satisfaction in seeing that they were wrong!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
Elouise
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:02 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Elouise »

CVX wrote: All I can say is: duh!

Hundreds of thousands of years worth of climate records in ice cores show there is nothing unusual in a global warming trend over the past 25 years.



Marine geophysicist Bob Carter, a professor at Queensland's James Cook University and leading climate change sceptic, said the effects of human activity would barely register in the long-term history of climate change.



He told The Weekend Australian that ice cores from Antarctica "tell us clearly that in the context of the meteorological records of 100 years, it is not unusual to have a period of warming like the one we are in at the moment".



Dr Carter disputed the theory that human activity was making a current - natural - warm period hotter: "Atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change." He argues that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation".



Fellow sceptic William Kininmonth, a former director of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, agreed. He wrote in a 2004 book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard that there was "every reason to believe that the variabilities in global temperature and other climate characteristics experienced over the past century are part of the natural variability of the climate system and are not a consequence of recent anthropogenic activities".



But other leading scientists, who blame human activity for climate change, say the "denialists" are a one-to-99 minority.



Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, said: "There is no debate. The debate is over." The evidence that human activity had increased emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to natural warming, was "overwhelming", he said.



For scientist and University of Adelaide academic Tim Flannery there was also no argument: humans had turned up the heating and only humans could keep a lid on it. The argument that human activity did not contribute to global warming was "not a credible hypothesis to build policy on", he said.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_pa

ge/0,5744,17752119%255E601,00.html


Ya know....a great deal of people put their faith in the scientific community as the secular gospel......claiming these guys are the 'know-all'.....

I respect scientists, I feel they're panting to catch up, trying to know what's all been written down already.

In my short lifetime...the electron microscope showed scientists beyond an 'electron, neutron and a proton'......that DNA, RNA, Mitochondria, and other components of a Cell exist with amazing chemical processes.

I don't put my faith in man....we all can tell in our short lives...'things, they are a changin'. as long as you truly open yer eyes...and get through the 'denial' phase....;)

Even the Ostrich took his head outta the sand as temperatures rose...a bushfire through spontaneous combustion hit him in the arse...and burned off his tail feathers. ;)
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by zinkyusa »

I agree it's difficult to make assements based on 100 years of godd data but common sense would say it's not a good idea to continue to dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the current rate. I don't agree it's time to panic yet.:)
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

MMMMM...maybe not "panic," Zinky....but it's certainly time to DO SOMETHING! Technologies and science exist today, if we are willing to make some sacrifices and put the techniques into action.

Trouble is...as a global problem...many, if not most, countries would be hard-pressed to jump right in. For example...go to China, out in the country, and (quite LITERALLY) see air which is so fouled with particulates that you'll get sick, because your lungs can't clear the junk.

Go to the Amazon areas and see people burning rain forest to create inefficient pasture land to raise beef cattle.

As a normally optimistic person, I'm having trouble believing the solutions will come--in time, if at all.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

This debate continues to flip between natural warming and man-made warming. I don't believe we have the data to determine either way. We are not only subject to meteorological cycles, but to the cycles prevalent in the solar system.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of caution. If we protect our environment, this planet and the world thereon would be a far better place to be. Although, we are not yet in a position to do anything much about the natural cycles. Knowing the human race, if we tried, we would probably make matters worse in the long run.:rolleyes:

If only enough people cared, though. As individuals, we are subject to economic forces, the multinational companies tend to lead the way according to how much profit they can make for their shareholders. But there are several groups now who are trying to enlighten people and influence economic and political groups. Perhaps it would make sense to support these groups. The more of us that 'shout out', the more likely these groups will, eventually, take notice.

Although for profit purposes, BP is already on the bandwagon. This is some small encouragement for those who believe that our prime purpose is as keepers of this beautiful planet.
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

Yes, OM...I love the idea of STEWARDSHIP...taking care of something which isn't yours! And, like you, I'm not ready to just throw up my hands and declare it all "natural." Undoubtedly this has occurred before, naturally. BUT...it's escalating at such an alarming rate because of US!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by zinkyusa »

Lulu2 wrote: MMMMM...maybe not "panic," Zinky....but it's certainly time to DO SOMETHING! Technologies and science exist today, if we are willing to make some sacrifices and put the techniques into action.

Trouble is...as a global problem...many, if not most, countries would be hard-pressed to jump right in. For example...go to China, out in the country, and (quite LITERALLY) see air which is so fouled with particulates that you'll get sick, because your lungs can't clear the junk.

Go to the Amazon areas and see people burning rain forest to create inefficient pasture land to raise beef cattle.

As a normally optimistic person, I'm having trouble believing the solutions will come--in time, if at all.


Well I'm already a vegetarian and I'll be happy to switch ethanol if I can find a station that sells it.

I agree it's time to wise up but preaching doomsday just makes people dig their heels..:-5
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

(ANOTHER vegetarian? Vegan or ovo-lacto?) You're right about the "doomsday" approach. If we could only turn cattle pasture into SOY BEANS! ( :-1 sigh)
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

zinkyusa wrote: Well I'm already a vegetarian and I'll be happy to switch ethanol if I can find a station that sells it.



I agree it's time to wise up but preaching doomsday just makes people dig their heels..:-5


Sure, we can't force people to listen. We can't force our opinions on them. We can, however, try to educate people. Not from the perspective of eventual doom, but from the position of making the world and our environment a better place.

Laws and politics do nothing to change the environment. It is important to appeal to people's common sense. This can only be done initially as a 'movement'. One individual's voice would barely be heard.
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

OM...Dr. Jane Goodall (my hero) has created a world-wide organization for young people, called Roots & Shoots. It's based on the premise that, even as a single seed can sprout, put down roots and ultimately break through concrete...so, too, can a single person have enormous impact on a problem.

I think of her life when I think of that principle...one woman has single-handedly focused attention on the endangerment of chimpanzees and the importance of working individually to have global effect.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

Lulu2 wrote: OM...Dr. Jane Goodall (my hero) has created a world-wide organization for young people, called Roots & Shoots. It's based on the premise that, even as a single seed can sprout, put down roots and ultimately break through concrete...so, too, can a single person have enormous impact on a problem.



I think of her life when I think of that principle...one woman has single-handedly focused attention on the endangerment of chimpanzees and the importance of working individually to have global effect.


Such people are rare, Lulu. They have special qualities including the ability to motivate people through the force of love alone. I bow my head in respect to these 'Mother Theresa' types.

Even so, during our day to day mundanities, those little conversations between work colleagues all contribute to the greater good (or bad, unfortunately, in some cases). We do all of us have a 'voice'.
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

I've been fortunate enough to attend three "Roots & Shoots" events when groups came to show their projects to Dr. Goodall. They range from things as (seemingly) simple as cleaning up/maintaining a small park to creating a traveling educational program for school children. There were Brownies, Girl & Boy Scouts, home-schooled children---Dr. Goodall met with each and every group! She closed the doors to press/unrelated people and focused everything on the groups.

She has malaria and is in fragile health, but the light and peace which surround her are amazing to see and feel.

What she teaches these groups is that each one of us CAN make a difference...even if it's "only" in those "day to day mundanities....conversations" and the small things we do.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

Lulu2 wrote: I've been fortunate enough to attend three "Roots & Shoots" events when groups came to show their projects to Dr. Goodall. They range from things as (seemingly) simple as cleaning up/maintaining a small park to creating a traveling educational program for school children. There were Brownies, Girl & Boy Scouts, home-schooled children---Dr. Goodall met with each and every group! She closed the doors to press/unrelated people and focused everything on the groups.



She has malaria and is in fragile health, but the light and peace which surround her are amazing to see and feel.



What she teaches these groups is that each one of us CAN make a difference...even if it's "only" in those "day to day mundanities....conversations" and the small things we do.


That is marvelous. And it's with the children where we can be most effective.

Not everyone can work with children, though. But, as you say, we can all do our little bit. The sum total (of our efforts) is always greater than the parts.
User avatar
Elouise
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:02 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Elouise »

zinkyusa wrote: I agree it's difficult to make assements based on 100 years of godd data but common sense would say it's not a good idea to continue to dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the current rate. I don't agree it's time to panic yet.:)


When does pre-planning begin before the push of the panic button?:confused:
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

Exactly, OM...exactly!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

Lulu2 wrote: Exactly, OM...exactly!


On the other hand, the focussed efforts of a group can take individual effort and raise it's power, rather like a choir. The thread for BR is a very good example of this.
User avatar
Elouise
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:02 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Elouise »

It's very interesting how the power of M.A.D.D. changed major laws in the U.S.

I always believe women have power in numbers...especially when they rally

around a great cause...

I would love to see the hot air of global embracement of gas inudated fossils

impeded from burning througout the atmosphere...Right Ladies?
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

And the thread/effort for BR continues to inspire me! Haven't we ALL told friends, etc, about it? When I think about focused energy, I think about sports--if we put just a fragment of the energy/interest around sports into saving the environment....well...:rolleyes:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

Elouise wrote: It's very interesting how the power of M.A.D.D. changed major laws in the U.S.

I always believe women have power in numbers...especially when they rally

around a great cause...

I would love to see the hot air of global embracement of gas inudated fossils

impeded from burning througout the atmosphere...Right Ladies?


I've come across this group, M.A.D.D., before on this forum. Who are they?
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by anastrophe »

Lulu2 wrote: (ANOTHER vegetarian? Vegan or ovo-lacto?) You're right about the "doomsday" approach. If we could only turn cattle pasture into SOY BEANS! ( :-1 sigh)


actually, more of the amazon rainforest is being destroyed in order to create cropland for growing soy than for raising cattle.



it's one of the reasons i try to avoid soy products. but unfortunately, soy has become a near-ubiquitous food additive.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

Pinky wrote: Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, OM


Thanks, Pinky.:-6
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

And THOSE are the folks who'll be in court with B'R's family when they have the hearing for that SOB!....at least, we hope so!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

Lulu2 wrote: And the thread/effort for BR continues to inspire me! Haven't we ALL told friends, etc, about it? When I think about focused energy, I think about sports--if we put just a fragment of the energy/interest around sports into saving the environment....well...:rolleyes:


Through a couple of jumps in logic, I realised that this would not suit our leaders at all. We would be self-actualising, self-realising individuals with power. It would not do to have an empowered electorate.
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

"It would not do to have an empowered electorate." :wah: NO KIDDING! We might just toss them out on their business-focused, self-centered, short-sighted BUMS!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

Lulu2 wrote: "It would not do to have an empowered electorate." :wah: NO KIDDING! We might just toss them out on their business-focused, self-centered, short-sighted BUMS!


We honestly would not need them. We would not need a leadership elite to tell us what to do.

After all, the ruling elite got there through a hell of a lot of bloodshed and warfare. An act based upon the old animal instinct for group leadership. They may have declared their good intentions, but power was their goal.
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

Anastrophe: actually, more of the amazon rainforest is being destroyed in order to create cropland for growing soy than for raising cattle.



+++++++++++ If you said SOME of the amazon forest, etc, I'd agree with you. "



"However, in Brazil only about one-third of recent deforestation can be linked to "shifted" cultivators. A large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, misguided government policies, inappropriate World Bank projects, and commercial exploitation of forest resources."

(http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html) Subsistence farming, miscellaneous crops, hardwood logging...they all take a toll, but it's still about the world's hunger for beef and the pastureland required to raise it.



I'd love to see the US begin subsidizing soy crops instead of tobacco!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by anastrophe »

Lulu2 wrote: Anastrophe: actually, more of the amazon rainforest is being destroyed in order to create cropland for growing soy than for raising cattle.





+++++++++++ If you said SOME of the amazon forest, etc, I'd agree with you. "



"However, in Brazil only about one-third of recent deforestation can be linked to "shifted" cultivators. A large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, misguided government policies, inappropriate World Bank projects, and commercial exploitation of forest resources."



(http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html) Subsistence farming, miscellaneous crops, hardwood logging...they all take a toll, but it's still about the world's hunger for beef and the pastureland required to raise it.





I'd love to see the US begin subsidizing soy crops instead of tobacco!


that may be, but the rate of increase for soy production is what's growing rapidly, and that in no way helps with reducing rainforest destruction.



soy is largely a 'junk' crop. non-fermented soy products are not terribly good for you, and it's for non-fermented purposes most is now grown (again, as a cheap filler in other food products).



but we're a bit off topic here.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by OpenMind »

anastrophe wrote: that may be, but the rate of increase for soy production is what's growing rapidly, and that in no way helps with reducing rainforest destruction.



soy is largely a 'junk' crop. non-fermented soy products are not terribly good for you, and it's for non-fermented purposes most is now grown (again, as a cheap filler in other food products).



but we're a bit off topic here.


Hardly off-topic, Anastrophe. The destruction of rainforest contributes to man-made global warming. Profit is the purpose. But profit is very short-sighted.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by anastrophe »

This article is very well worth the read.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... warm05.xml



here's a rule of thumb: the more people tell you "the debate is over", the more you should question why they feel the need to keep saying so.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Galbally »

I read the telegraph article, and it is of no surprise to me as skepticism about any purported scientific "fact" is what the scientific method is about in the first place so if there was no debate going on about the influence of the Sun in this overall picture I would be worried as the Sun is far and away the most important influence on all of the planets in the solar system in every way. But to say that these things are not taken into consideration, or that scientists themselves don't actually scrutinize what they are studying and base findings and conclusions on political and commerical considerations like politicans, lawyers, and economists do shows a basic misunderstanding of how science is actually done and the standards to which any important work is scrutinized by other scientists, thats their first and most important job. They do take such things into consideration, lets take the one included in the article where a Japanese Scientist has claimed that the sun was warmer in the 20th century than at any other point. My first question would be how was this determined? We have no direct way of telling how hot the sun was at any point before direct solar temperatures were begun, we can only make a qualified judgement based on extrapolating from indirect evidence and revering the patterns we know exist within the Suns behaviour, I would also suggest that in fact we have only a very rudimentary understanding of the cycles of the sun and the evidence of past activity is phenomological and seems to involve many random events which cannot predict to any degree. This to me suggests that what we need to do is study our environment more and prioritize the necessity of understand that upon which is so basic for our survival we don't notice it, not to say, don't worry, go back to bed, it'll be fine.



CO2 is different as Greenland Ice Cores give direct evidence of CO2 levels in air from say 50,000 years ago as that is the age of the air trapped within air pockets in the ice sheet and these can be dated realtively well. This evidence shows unequivacoly that CO2 levels have rocketed in our planets atmosphere since industrialization, and its also unequivocal that are planets atmosphere has warmed significantly in the last 50 years and that this increase is accelerating. It does seem that almost everyone now accepts that the atmosphere will warm by at least 1-2 degrees in the next few decades, (and that is conservative I assure you), even such a modest rise when taken for the planet as a whole, combined with widescale habitiat destruction should demonstrate to even the most recalcitrant skeptic that we are entering a phase of climatic change that is unprecendented in historical terms, and yet far from adopting the sound precautionary principal that upon entering such a phase it is unwise to continue accelerating our impact upon the climate, we should ignore all of the scientific "cassandras" and carry on regardless, its an insane position to take, we have over the last 250 years conducted basically a big unregulated experiment in changing the nature of our climate and environment, and if that experiement goes badly wrong, we don't have another lab to start again in.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
acousticide
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:12 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by acousticide »

First of all, several years ago Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines tossed more CO2 and ozone depleting compounds directly into the upper atmosphere than we could in 1000 years going at the rate we were going.

secondly, the Earths axis has a wobble that takes approximately 26000 years to complete

Thirdly, when I was in 6th grade back in 1970 or 71 they were teching us that the earth was getting cooler not warmer.

To think that it could all change in such a short time is not only irresponsible science, but foolishness.

The Sun has cycles that directly affect earths climate.

There is a deep sea current that takes approximatley 1600 years to completely circumnavigate the globe.

I am not saying that we may have no effect, but I am sure that its less than .0001%

Actually, look at it this way

Take all of the sunlight reflected back by roads, buildings, etc.

Not to mention all of the refrigeration systems , air conditioners, etc..

in the US alone there are several hundred million tons of cooling going on CONSTANTLY

Some people are so needy, that they jump on any wagon that comes along.

Remember too, if its a CRISIS, then you get $$$$$$$$ for research.
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Lulu2 »

Exactly, 'BallyBob...we DON'T have another place to begin again! Nor do the fellow species who inhabit the earth with us.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Bill Sikes »

acousticide;503688 wrote: Take all of the sunlight reflected back by roads, buildings, etc.

Not to mention all of the refrigeration systems , air conditioners, etc..


Strewth. This is good. Please explain about the effects of refrigeration systems,

air conditioners, etc.
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Galbally »

acousticide;503688 wrote: First of all, several years ago Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines tossed more CO2 and ozone depleting compounds directly into the upper atmosphere than we could in 1000 years going at the rate we were going.

secondly, the Earths axis has a wobble that takes approximately 26000 years to complete

Thirdly, when I was in 6th grade back in 1970 or 71 they were teching us that the earth was getting cooler not warmer.

To think that it could all change in such a short time is not only irresponsible science, but foolishness.

The Sun has cycles that directly affect earths climate.

There is a deep sea current that takes approximatley 1600 years to completely circumnavigate the globe.

I am not saying that we may have no effect, but I am sure that its less than .0001%

Actually, look at it this way

Take all of the sunlight reflected back by roads, buildings, etc.

Not to mention all of the refrigeration systems , air conditioners, etc..

in the US alone there are several hundred million tons of cooling going on CONSTANTLY

Some people are so needy, that they jump on any wagon that comes along.

Remember too, if its a CRISIS, then you get $$$$$$$$ for research.


I'm sorry but you are utterly wrong. The British meterological office, the US antarctic survey, the royal society, MIT, Caltech, NASA, ESA, the EU Science Directorate, the Ecoles Nationale, the Chinese Science ministry are not irresponsible scientific bodies, in fact they are regarded as among the the best scientific institutions in the world. All are agreed on the reality of climate change, 2 weeks ago 10,000 US scientists made the unprecedented step of signing a petition demanding the the current administration stops politicizing science, I as a trained scientist can assure you that it is not the worlds scientists who are irresponsible, its the idiots in charge of the world that simply refuse to take any responsibility for dealing with this very real issue that are the irresponsible ones. There is no argument within the vast majority of scientists that this is happening, and happening right now, not in 20 years time, I suggest you actually look at serious scientific opinions on this matter, not fashionable editorials from iconoclastic, ill-informed, irredentist, idiotic media pundits.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by anastrophe »

Galbally;504512 wrote: I'm sorry but you are utterly wrong. The British meterological office, the US antarctic survey, the royal society, MIT, Caltech, NASA, ESA, the EU Science Directorate, the Ecoles Nationale, the Chinese Science ministry are not irresponsible scientific bodies, in fact they are regarded as among the the best scientific institutions in the world. All are agreed on the reality of climate change, 2 weeks ago 10,000 US scientists made the unprecedented step of signing a petition demanding the the current administration stops politicizing science, I as a trained scientist can assure you that it is not the worlds scientists who are irresponsible, its the idiots in charge of the world that simply refuse to take any responsibility for dealing with this very real issue that are the irresponsible ones. There is no argument within the vast majority of scientists that this is happening, and happening right now, not in 20 years time, I suggest you actually look at serious scientific opinions on this matter, not fashionable editorials from iconoclastic, ill-informed, irredentist, idiotic media pundits.


the problem is, we are told that there is a 'smoking gun'. but there isn't. it has not been produced. there's no shortage of speculation along the lines of "what else could it be?". but that's not science. until a *direct* link between human activity and global warming can be formed, it is irresponsible to make massive changes to the world's infrastructure, which can do grave harm to the quality of life of six billion people. the imperative that "we've got to do something!" is the same imperative with which the road to hell has often been paved.



there's considerable evidence that the warming we are experiencing is due to long (very, very long) solar output variations. we are coming out of a cool period of the last several centuries. it is by no means established that the warming is directly caused by human activity.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Galbally »

anastrophe;504580 wrote: the problem is, we are told that there is a 'smoking gun'. but there isn't. it has not been produced. there's no shortage of speculation along the lines of "what else could it be?". but that's not science. until a *direct* link between human activity and global warming can be formed, it is irresponsible to make massive changes to the world's infrastructure, which can do grave harm to the quality of life of six billion people. the imperative that "we've got to do something!" is the same imperative with which the road to hell has often been paved.



there's considerable evidence that the warming we are experiencing is due to long (very, very long) solar output variations. we are coming out of a cool period of the last several centuries. it is by no means established that the warming is directly caused by human activity.


No anastrophe, the evidence is conclusive that rising CO2 emissions are causing an accelerating shift in global climatic patterns. This is not an issue within the scientific community, only within the political and media community. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has risen by about 140 ppm over the past 200 years from a pretty stable preindustrial level of about 240 ppm, so its now 380 ppm approx. When I was in college 10 year ago it was about 355, so now its in just the last 10 years gone up by 25 ppm, thats an alarming acceleration in CO2 levels, anyone who has studied climate science understands what unprecedented increases like this imply, and its not good.

So where is it coming from?, simple, industrial activity is accounting for the overwhelming majority of the rise in CO2 levels worldwide, and as the world continues to develop rapidly more fossil fuels are being burned, and more CO2 is being emitted, this is elementary stuff we are talking about, its not rocket science. The link between CO2 and warming are a basic climatic principal, after all we depend on a certain amount of CO2 to create a natural greenhouse effect, otherwise Earth would be frigid. What is not certain is what precisely the rate, or consequences of the rapid global warming being caused by CO2 emissions is going to be. But I can tell you in all seriousness that the scientific community is not optimistic, and its also clear that the science has become politicized so what can scientists do if people refuse to believe them?, (or start spinning the results of studies, and the normal academic process of peer review in which such studies are "proofed" to suggest that its all nonsense), thats just the big lie, plain and simple. I think its pretty horrendous that people are so cynical or ideological that they would lie about something so serious, just for some BS short-term political thin, in fact its pathetic. Scientists are not in power, and their agenda is a scientific one, not an economic or political one (unlike others getting involved in the scientific debate), scientists don't want to be in power, they are not politicians and generally have no interest in such things, but they are not going to pretend that this is not happening just because certain governments (your current one being a particularly acute example of this) do not want to do anything because it will cost their friends money and influence.

I don't recommend "catastrophic" changes to our systems, whats the point of causing a catastrophe in order to avoid one? I also don't know of any reputable scientists who are calling for anything other than dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions, not dramatic reductions in prosperity or industry. This is a difficult problem, as we depend upon fossil fuels to power our lives, and without power we would mostly freeze or starve in the Northern hemisphere, no one who is serious is suggesting thats a realistic option. Obviously the pressing thing is to dramatically increase our power efficiency, reduce our consumption of fossil fuels in as practicable a way as possible, (getting to a carbon-neutral economy one day), and developing the energy technologies that will help us to achieve these goals. In fact thats all that is possible. Look, its happening anyway, even if we switched off everything in the morning, it would still happen, as the carbon cycle takes decades, so we cannot really avoid the consequences now, thats a fact, we are definetly in for a bumpy ride. The only thing we can do at this stage is mitigate the consequences to be as little as possible (hopefully). I can vaguely understand why some people may think this is all some form of scientific conspiracy or liberal hokum, (I wish it was), but it isn't, and whether you believe me or not, I know its happening, and is going to get worse one way or the other, as do most scientists.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by anastrophe »

Galbally;504631 wrote: No anastrophe, the evidence is conclusive that rising CO2 emissions are causing an accelerating shift in global climatic patterns.
regrettably, no, that is not a concluded fact. from about 1945 to about 1980, global temperatures actually trended *downward*, even while the CO2 levels were steadily rising as you note below. that interval was one of industrial growth that outstripped all previous growth by many orders of magnitude. far more fossil fuels were burned - releasing CO2 of course - during that interval then in all preceding intervals in the industrial revolution combined. yet - global temperatures went *down*. one has to dismiss that with some pretty remarkable contortions and distortions to suggest that there is this 1:1 formula of increased CO2, increased global warming.





This is not an issue within the scientific community, only within the political and media community. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has risen by about 140 ppm over the past 200 years from a pretty stable preindustrial level of about 240 ppm, so its now 380 ppm approx. When I was in college 10 year ago it was about 355, so now its in just the last 10 years gone up by 25 ppm, thats an alarming acceleration in CO2 levels, anyone who has studied climate science understands what unprecedented increases like this imply, and its not good.


they may imply that we're about to enter another ice age cycle, for which we are about 26,000 years overdue. CO2 concentrations generally spike from a low of a bit below 200ppm, to about 300ppm *before* an ice age begins. we've overshot that - but as i said, we're about 26,000 years late. as well, the historical record of CO2 concentrations from ice cores hundreds of thousands of years old implicitly can't be as accurate as what we can measure in actual atmospheric concentrations today.





So where is it coming from?, simple, industrial activity is accounting for the overwhelming majority of the rise in CO2 levels worldwide, and as the world continues to develop rapidly more fossil fuels are being burned, and more CO2 is being emitted, this is elementary stuff we are talking about, its not rocket science.


indeed. but it's troublesome issues such as the cooling interval i mentioned that renders the issue complex, rather than simple. more complex than simply saying "we're causing it".





The link between CO2 and warming are a basic climatic principal, after all we depend on a certain amount of CO2 to create a natural greenhouse effect, otherwise Earth would be frigid. What is not certain is what precisely the rate, or consequences of the rapid global warming being caused by CO2 emissions is going to be. But I can tell you in all seriousness that the scientific community is not optimistic, and its also clear that the science has become politicized so what can scientists do if people refuse to believe them?, (or start spinning the results of studies, and the normal academic process of peer review in which such studies are "proofed" to suggest that its all nonsense), thats just the big lie, plain and simple. I think its pretty horrendous that people are so cynical or ideological that they would lie about something so serious, just for some BS short-term political thin, in fact its pathetic. Scientists are not in power, and their agenda is a scientific one, not an economic or political one (unlike others getting involved in the scientific debate), scientists don't want to be in power, they are not politicians and generally have no interest in such things, but they are not going to pretend that this is not happening just because certain governments (your current one being a particularly acute example of this) do not want to do anything because it will cost their friends money and influence.



I don't recommend "catastrophic" changes to our systems, whats the point of causing a catastrophe in order to avoid one? I also don't know of any reputable scientists who are calling for anything other than dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions, not dramatic reductions in prosperity or industry. This is a difficult problem, as we depend upon fossil fuels to power our lives, and without power we would mostly freeze or starve in the Northern hemisphere, no one who is serious is suggesting thats a realistic option. Obviously the pressing thing is to dramatically increase our power efficiency, reduce our consumption of fossil fuels in as practicable a way as possible, (getting to a carbon-neutral economy one day), and developing the energy technologies that will help us to achieve these goals. In fact thats all that is possible. Look, its happening anyway, even if we switched off everything in the morning, it would still happen, as the carbon cycle takes decades, so we cannot really avoid the consequences now, thats a fact, we are definetly in for a bumpy ride. The only thing we can do at this stage is mitigate the consequences to be as little as possible (hopefully). I can vaguely understand why some people may think this is all some form of scientific conspiracy or liberal hokum, (I wish it was), but it isn't, and whether you believe me or not, I know its happening, and is going to get worse one way or the other, as do most scientists.


i'm more skeptical. the evidence is not substantial at this point. the results as predicted even as recently as six years ago have not been borne out by the reality today: the IPCC predicted far worse changes would occur by now than the data we have today shows. are we to then suggest that the science that was available a mere six years ago - when the same message of impending disaster was being spread as is today - was that bad? then what does that say about climate science in general?



any science that attempts to predict the future from extremely scanty evidence (in terms of the historical record available) should be approached with considerable caution.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by Galbally »

Anastrophe, I did not say that Carbon emissions are the only thing that impact our climate, as obviously that is untrue, but the converse of that argument is that just becuase their are a myriad of other things that effect climate, that doesn't mean that we shoud ignore a trend that involves ever increasing CO2 levels, mixed with a global mean temperature that has been rising steadily, and yes in the middle decades of the 20th century the there was not the very rapid increases that we are seeing now, but temperatures didn't "fall" sharply in those years, what happened was that the temperature increases that were noted but not understood in the early 20th century, did not continue during the 40s and 50s, but the temperature didn't fall by any level out of annual expected mean variation. However, since the mid seventies the general trend of this century for temperatures to rise sharply, has accelerated way beyond what could be expected by natural variability, anyway, variability should work both ways, not just "up" all the time for 30 years, its not right. It is generally agreed that the atmosphere can "take" quite an increase in CO2 levels and still be able to remain pretty stable, however, once you start getting into the figures we are seeing now, the atmosphere should start reacting, and thats exactly what we are seeing.

Seeing as you are interested, here is a chart outlining my point. The X axis denotes annual temperature variability, the y axis the year in question. Watch how it goes coming into the 90s, and where it seems to be heading.




Oh, and the last glacial age ended 11,000 years ago, not 26,000 years ago, and yes we are almost overdue an ice age, going on the previous cycles of interglacials, but we are not 26,000 years overdue, we are due one about now, give or take 2,000 years. That doesn't mean that its going to happen, there seems to have been a sharp decrease in temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere from about the 17th century to the 19th century, perhaps it was an ice age that stalled because of industrialization, or simply a cold spell, perhaps we are living in a (very) warm spell, but going on the evidence I don't think so, its clear that the planet is heating up, and that its accelerating, I think that the data is actually screaming at us at this stage that something pretty unprecedented in thousands of years is happening to the climate, I somehow think that nothing I say will convince you, well so be it, you are free to make up you own mind of course.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by anastrophe »

yes, my dates were a little off. but what's a few tens of thousands of years amongst friends?



there are numerous issues associated with the ice ages and interglacial cycles within them. 'recent' ice ages have been on an approx 100,000 year cycle (peak to peak of the interglacial periods). the 'exit' from ice ages tends to be sharp and rather dramatic; the entry into a new ice age tends to be gradual. the last ice age 'ended' about 10,000 years ago, and the interglacial periods tend to be brief on a geological timescale. the problem is - none of this is precise. not by any means. what "should be" is impossible to predict, because past ice ages have shown great variability - in temperature mean, and in CO2 concentrations.



that our measured atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than the ice core samples have ever shown does not necessarily mean that our CO2 levels are higher than they were in the past. for one thing, there is no way to measure gas dispersal from bubbles into frozen water in a controlled way over geological time periods. it's a matter of faith that the gas trapped in a bubble in an ice core has remained unchanged in its makeup since the day it was trapped.



let me be clear - that last paragraph is a pet theory of mine. i've not found formal discussion of the matter, but given that we have no controlled samples of gas that have been stored for 400,000 years in ice, it's hard to nail down.



the variability graph you presented shows exactly what i spoke of - temperatures dipped from about 1945 to 1980. the solid line is the five year rolling average. look at the actual colored bars, and you see that temperatures most certainly did drop. before 1945, the solid line had been on a seemingly inexorable climb, at almost an identical rate to that since 1980. this interlude has not been explained satisfactorily to me. the five year rolling average obscures the significance of that interval, and i frankly think it's not a mistake that it appears in every such chart one can find. anthropogenic CO2 emissions during that interval were most definitely *not* stable or going down! they were going up at the same rate as before the interval. if this global warming trend is so tied to our production of CO2, then it must have taken a colossal forcing - as yet unexplained - to have kept the temperature rise from matching it.



this is an instance where - instead of spending months building and running massive supercomputer simulations of what global temperatures might be in a hundred years - i surely wish they'd put those supercomputers to work against the *historical data we actually have*, and provide an explanation, a solid explanation, for that interval. rather than dismissing it, which is all i've ever gotten when i've queried climate scientists on the matter. oh - the one 'explanation' i've gotten is that it was the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975 that stopped the negative forcing of manmade aerosols. please!!!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

Post by anastrophe »

also, could you source that graph, please? it shows anomaly, but doesn't provide the date that is the base.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Post Reply

Return to “Earth Changes”