Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

CO2 levels


mk13

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: colchester
  • Location: colchester

    Like most joe puplic, I thought the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (from what the media keep force feeding us) is higher than any time in the earth's history, also the temperature of the earth is close to an all time high! But whilst researching CO2 levels I came across this web site that differs from what the Government scientists are reporting: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...ml#anchor147264

    What does anyone think of this research and is it flawed?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 68
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
    Like most joe puplic, I thought the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (from what the media keep force feeding us) is higher than any time in the earth's history, also the temperature of the earth is close to an all time high! But whilst researching CO2 levels I came across this web site that differs from what the Government scientists are reporting: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...ml#anchor147264

    What does anyone think of this research and is it flawed?

    you need to compare 'like for like' and the carboniferous was not 'like' our world at all.

    Oxygen levels were such as to allow the development of fantastically large insects (I've seen 'footprints' of a centipede which must have been over 2m long) due to the spiricules being able to transport enough oxygen into the critter.

    Carb. highlight the amazing amount of proto forrestation that went on in the period (laying down the majority of the coal we are now burning) but also give you some idea of how much CO2 was 'locked away' in fossil fuels over that period.

    Can you now see how we could increase our atmospheric CO2 levels by burning the coal to +1000ppm?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Anyone who said that CO2 is at a all time high or temperature is at or near a all time high is wrong. Our climate now is nothing exceptional, the Earth has been much warmer in the past and CO2 has also probably been much higher, but what is exceptional today is the rate of change. Temperature and CO2 is increasing at rates simply unparalleled in the historical record.

    That's what makes what is happening today highly unusual and unprecedented.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    ...what is exceptional today is the rate of change. Temperature and CO2 is increasing at rates simply unparalleled in the historical record...That's what makes what is happening today highly unusual and unprecedented.

    How sure are we of that? If we look at the Vostok Ice Core, our eyes are immediately drawn to the big spikes which are in the order of 11°C over maybe 10000 years. These equate to a change of only 0.1°C per 100 years, which is obviously far smaller in magnitude than the current observed warming (between 5 and 7 times smaller, depending on who you ask! ;) ).

    However, if you can tear your eyes away from the big spikes and look at some of the little ones, you can see 2 and 3°C changes taking place in a short enough time frame that the lines appear completely vertical. If the vertical line covers 1000 years then that equates to a change of, say, 0.3°C per 100 years (which is only half of the current rate of change), or if the vertical lines cover 500 years then the rate of change would equal currently observed changes.

    The big spikes on the graph are useful in attempting to detemine correlations between temperature and CO2, whereas the small spikes are not. On the other hand, the big spikes are often the exception rather than the rule - they tend to have slower rates of change than the small spikes. Take into account, also, that there are error bars associated with the graph and, at the centennial timescale (and even, to some extent, the millennial), the graph is inconclusive in this area.

    In short, there is actually little or no evidence that the current rate of change is truly unprecendented.

    post-6357-1175867166_thumb.jpg

    8)

    CB

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
    How sure are we of that? If we look at the Vostok Ice Core, our eyes are immediately drawn to the big spikes which are in the order of 11°C over maybe 10000 years. These equate to a change of only 0.1°C per 100 years, which is obviously far smaller in magnitude than the current observed warming (between 5 and 7 times smaller, depending on who you ask! ;) ).

    However, if you can tear your eyes away from the big spikes and look at some of the little ones, you can see 2 and 3°C changes taking place in a short enough time frame that the lines appear completely vertical. If the vertical line covers 1000 years then that equates to a change of, say, 0.3°C per 100 years (which is only half of the current rate of change), or if the vertical lines cover 500 years then the rate of change would equal currently observed changes.

    The big spikes on the graph are useful in attempting to detemine correlations between temperature and CO2, whereas the small spikes are not. On the other hand, the big spikes are often the exception rather than the rule - they tend to have slower rates of change than the small spikes. Take into account, also, that there are error bars associated with the graph and, at the centennial timescale (and even, to some extent, the millennial), the graph is inconclusive in this area.

    In short, there is actually little or no evidence that the current rate of change is truly unprecendented.

    post-6357-1175867166_thumb.jpg

    8)

    CB

    You paint a simple picture there C-Bob! What about the levels of environmental destruction (less vegatation) since we last visited these atmospheric levels and where are our brakes to halt our output at the old 'maximums'? Along with the atmospheric changes there are the 'human changes' we have inflicted on our planet. NW Europe deforested, N.W. Australia deforested, Amazonia ,under deforestation, Indonesia, under deforestation, Africa ,human induced desertification, India Bovine methane, China, Paddy field methane. None of these were there when we last visited these 'atmospheric mixes'.

    If we had a concentrated source of atmospheric pollution (maybe a rift eruption) that was producing the mix of gasses and particulates for the past 200yrs we may pay more attention. If, over the past 50yrs, outputs from the 'rift' increased logrithmically and volumes of year gas output sky rocketed we would be very alarmed and trying our best to 'offset' nature's output s(I bet!).

    But we'd know it had to stop at some point (for history tells us this is what happens) but today? Will we stop the 'eruption' or will we continue to fuel it and deny it's influence?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    You paint a simple picture there C-Bob! What about the levels of environmental destruction (less vegatation) since we last visited these atmospheric levels and where are our brakes to halt our output at the old 'maximums'? Along with the atmospheric changes there are the 'human changes' we have inflicted on our planet. NW Europe deforested, N.W. Australia deforested, Amazonia ,under deforestation, Indonesia, under deforestation, Africa ,human induced desertification, India Bovine methane, China, Paddy field methane. None of these were there when we last visited these 'atmospheric mixes'.

    The point I was trying to make was simple, hence the simple picture. Granted that the situation itself may be different, that the continental positions may differ slightly (increasingly as we look back through time), that levels of vegetation may differ and so on, but I was just taking issue with the one assertion that temperatures are increasing at an unprecendented rate - a statement which I don't think can be conclusively backed up. The cause of the temperature change is beside the point in this case. Whether or not there is any mechanism by which the warming can be reined in, I can't say.

    CB

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    Sorry C-Bob but that's a 'foul'.

    You can't talk about the human induced atmospheric mixes without including the environment that produced that mix.

    In the past the die back of vegitation had it's double whammy of decomposing into CO2 and also stopping absorbing CO2 so you must include similar into any 'like for like' comparison or you may 'mislead' others into wrong/unsustainable thinking on the subject.

    You must also 'explore' the reasons for levels to fall back to the 280ppm after past highs and compare to the situation today. Otherwise it'd be like saying 'Ice Age Now!' because it snowed in Norway.......

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    Sorry C-Bob but that's a 'foul'.

    You can't talk about the human induced atmospheric mixes without including the environment that produced that mix.

    In the past the die back of vegitation had it's double whammy of decomposing into CO2 and also stopping absorbing CO2 so you must include similar into any 'like for like' comparison or you may 'mislead' others into wrong/unsustainable thinking on the subject.

    You must also 'explore' the reasons for levels to fall back to the 280ppm after past highs and compare to the situation today. Otherwise it'd be like saying 'Ice Age Now!' because it snowed in Norway.......

    I think you may have misinterpreted my post. I wasn't talking about atmospheric mixes, human-induced or otherwise. I was simply pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence that temperatures are currently increasing at an unprecedented rate - I never mentioned cause, only the rate of change of the effect.

    Actually, this is quite an important point because the historic record doesn't prove that temperatures have never increased so quickly as now. If temperatures are, indeed, capable of increasing as quickly as is currently observed - without any input from man whatsoever - then there's yet more support for the idea that the current changes are natural in origin.

    There is no need to debate cause when discussing the rate of change of the effect. In fact, if the rate of change of the effect (temperature) has been as great, or greater, in the past then it potentially reduces the worrying aspect of the current, but different, cause.

    Basically all I'm doing is comparing temperature gradients. I can analyse those gradients without having to relate them to, for example, CO2 gradients.

    CB

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
    Basically all I'm doing is comparing temperature gradients. I can analyse those gradients without having to relate them to, for example, CO2 gradients.

    CB

    Oh, OK I see now but I don't see where you can be going with it though as the basic forcings are all different (esp. Todays) and so can only show how similar 2 lines can be.

    Maybe it'd be like looking at the temp gradient of a fan assisted oven when turned on full compared to the temp gradient of south facing boulders in Death valley as ther sun rises......and so on, similar lines but vastly different situations.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    Oh, OK I see now but I don't see where you can be going with it though as the basic forcings are all different (esp. Todays) and so can only show how similar 2 lines can be.

    Maybe it'd be like looking at the temp gradient of a fan assisted oven when turned on full compared to the temp gradient of south facing boulders in Death valley as ther sun rises......and so on, similar lines but vastly different situations.

    I suppose my point is twofold. Firstly, it is to emphasise the fact that the assertion "temperatures are currently increasing at an unprecedented rate" may not, in fact, be true. To make that assertion implies that it is critical to lessen, or halt, the increase post haste. Accepting that temperatures may have increased as quickly in the past reduces the urgency of this, as it's happened before (for one reason or another) without resulting in catastrophe. This leads into the second point, which is...

    ...perhaps the temperature increase is not due to mankind's actions. Okay, so this is the old "we're not responsible" argument once again rearing its ugly head, but hear me out. One of the facts (only one, admittedly) that points to our involvement in global warming is that temperatures are believed to be increasing more rapidly than at any other time in history (the last half million years or so at least). This, it is said, is because we are forcing the climate to change by a greater factor than any other (natural) factor - since natural factors alone cannot cause such dramatic changes, we must be causing the lion's share of the damage. However, if temperatures have changed that quickly in the past then this argument deflates completely. Obviously nature is capable of such "rapid" temperature increases all by itself, and there would be no need to invoke the idea that mankind must be causing the shortfall.

    I would agree that the situation now is different from the situation(s) in the Vostok Ice Core, as long as the assumptions those differences are based on are valid. For example, CO2may be higher now than at a particular point in the past (assuming CO2 level reconstructions are accurate), but does CO2 actually have the forcing effect that has been attributed to it? Yes, it's that old question again!

    8)

    CB

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    I'm off on the assumption trail now! I must assume that the quote is a derivative of a press article on climate science paper that was released for peer group ingestion and not general mass release. If not then there is a lot of 'context' gone AWOL from the text and so ,both ways the statement is 'clumsy' at best and down right stupid at worst.

    Somewhere, in the missing text, are the parameters within which the statement holds true. Without those parameters the discussion is merely wordplay and I agree with your concerns over what you have 'interpreted' it as.

    Context is what we are lacking. I could produce steep global temp changes from many periods in geological time Some as we emerged from Glaciation and some from Continental accretion, both equally as steep but with 'start points' in different temp. ranges. All it would show is the planets potential/ability to amass heat rapidly through various forcing over many environmental types in time.

    So what?

    So it does show that the planet can warm up fast (is able within it's atmospheric setup) to warm, globally, rapidly. We have a definite 'suspect' at worse and 'mechanism ' at best to bring about warming from purely human driven activities and geographic manipulation that have not been present at any of the last 'warnings' and I'm supposed to buy into a majority 'natural forcing' and an itsy bitsy bit of AGW? I don't buy it.

    We may also start to find a natural influence 'destablising' climate further but against a backdrop of constant CO2 increases and 70yrs of tied up climatic influence therein.

    We really do not have very long to wait (IMHO) to see how undeniable our input is in it's effects. As I said, had this pollution been from a supervolcano/rift eruption many more of the 'doubters' would be yelling about changing things than care to bother with our problems today.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    I'm off on the assumption trail now! I must assume that the quote is a derivative of a press article on climate science paper that was released for peer group ingestion and not general mass release. If not then there is a lot of 'context' gone AWOL from the text and so ,both ways the statement is 'clumsy' at best and down right stupid at worst.

    Somewhere, in the missing text, are the parameters within which the statement holds true. Without those parameters the discussion is merely wordplay and I agree with your concerns over what you have 'interpreted' it as.

    Context is what we are lacking. I could produce steep global temp changes from many periods in geological time Some as we emerged from Glaciation and some from Continental accretion, both equally as steep but with 'start points' in different temp. ranges. All it would show is the planets potential/ability to amass heat rapidly through various forcing over many environmental types in time.

    Here's a couple of instances of the phrase "unpredented warming" (to find context, search for the word "unprecedented")

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...ngerprints.html

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/warmingfacts.pdf

    "Human-generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations have combined with natural forces to cause unprecedented warming in the cold Arctic in the 20th century...Between 1840 and the mid-20th century, the Arctic warmed to the highest levels of the past four centuries, causing dramatic retreats of glaciers, thawing of permafrost and sea-ice, and changes in terrestrial and lake ecosystems, according to the study published in the Nov. 14 issue of Science magazine, the department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

    -400 Years Of Arctic Data Provide Insight Into Climate Change

    news release from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

    13 Nov 97 "

    - Taken from: http://www.stthomas.edu/recycle/WARM.HTM

    We have a definite 'suspect' at worse and 'mechanism ' at best to bring about warming from purely human driven activities and geographic manipulation that have not been present at any of the last 'warnings' and I'm supposed to buy into a majority 'natural forcing' and an itsy bitsy bit of AGW? I don't buy it.

    Okay, so our "suspect" (or "mechanism", depending on one's certainty) is Human Activity. Our current understanding of various climatological processes, and our assumptions and attributions of various "forcing factors", seem to point the finger of blame largely in the direction of mankind. We've found our culprit and we're just about ready to proclaim him Guilty As Charged (if we haven't done so already).

    However, our current understanding of climatology is insufficient to be able to give a perfectly self-consistent explanation for how or why the historical instances of warming and cooling occurred. We can speculate, or make informed guesses as to the processes that may have been involved in triggering the start or end of an ice age, but we can't say how these events occurred. Not with any degree of certainty, and not with the degree of certainty with which we appear to have condemned mankind.

    So how can our suspect/mechanism for 20th Century warming be "Very Likely (>90%)" the cause of said warming, when the suspects/mechanisms for previous warming (and cooling) events are poorly understood (or certainly not understood to the extent that modern warming is claimed to be).

    The question of whether or not 20th Century warming is unprecedented is of some importance to the climate change debate. For the reasons given in my last post, there is a degree of urgency attributable to this claim, and if the claim is false then so, too, is the claim of urgency (at least in part).

    I suppose this is all a part of my damn fool crusade to eliminate the rhetoric from the debate! I've seen several debates on here end with a variation on the theme of "what you've said is all well and good, but the current warming is unprecedented and that's the difference". If that assertion is untrue then it shouldn't be used as a shutoff switch for the debate.

    8)

    CB

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    But maybe there is the nub, we don't fully understand by far the complexities of our planets 'systems' but we do understand what pumping CO2 into our environment does.

    The planet has a set of natural forcing (over time) that can instigate the 'see-sawing' from glacial to temperate but it takes something special to instigate 'tropical' planetary climates and our influence may just be great enough to set that change into motion.

    Some of the 'changes', once instigated, are self reinforcing (run-away) and ,as such, have rarely been breached before the planets 'oscillations have swung things into reverse.

    We have 40 thousand years of 'influence' to undo (if we take Australian aboriginals 'management' of NW Australia as a start point) to bring the planet back to her 'point of balance' before man's impacts. That would mean at least 40 thousand years of exerting pressures on our 'balanced' planetary systems with a rapid accelleration of the impacts since the 1750's (another 'hockey stick' graph).

    I too share concerns over the 'natural variability' of the climate and some of the 'safety nets' of the planetary systems as if these tend to reinforce our efforts then the 'tipping points' will be breached far sooner than with just mans inputs.

    Once inertia is overcome then change takes less effort and I feel that we (over the past 15yrs) have overcome the planets own resistance to change making things far more dynamic than over the preceding 50yrs as measurements are now starting to show.

    If there has been any 'massaging of figures' to fit the evidence so as to stop oil money spoilers then the next 5 to 10 years will see changes far above current predictions.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    But maybe there is the nub, we don't fully understand by far the complexities of our planets 'systems' but we do understand what pumping CO2 into our environment does.

    Do we? To what degree of certainty? If we don't fully understand the complexities of our planet's systems then how do we know how those same systems will react to a change in CO2? By that same token, how do we know that our theoretical understanding of CO2 forcing isn't completely negated by natural adaptation by the planet's systems?

    The planet has a set of natural forcing (over time) that can instigate the 'see-sawing' from glacial to temperate but it takes something special to instigate 'tropical' planetary climates and our influence may just be great enough to set that change into motion.

    What do you mean by "tropical" planetary climates? A temperature increase of 3°C?; 5°C?; 10°C? The historical record (Vostok, in particular) is replete with examples of rapid temperature changes of 3-5°C, as I said in my first post on this thread. What was the special "something" that caused those instances of see-sawing?

    Some of the 'changes', once instigated, are self reinforcing (run-away) and ,as such, have rarely been breached before the planets 'oscillations have swung things into reverse.

    Do we know this as a fact? How can we be sure of that when we admit that we have no fully self-consistent explanation for past temperature changes (on the millennial timescale)?

    We have 40 thousand years of 'influence' to undo (if we take Australian aboriginals 'management' of NW Australia as a start point) to bring the planet back to her 'point of balance' before man's impacts. That would mean at least 40 thousand years of exerting pressures on our 'balanced' planetary systems with a rapid accelleration of the impacts since the 1750's (another 'hockey stick' graph).

    I think going back 40,000 years is taking things to extremes. The AGW argument is that there was no significant alteration to "natural changes" until the Industrial Revolution, at which point temperatures (allegedly) started to increase at an unprecedented rate. Going back closer to mankind's origins in an attempt to ram home the point of "our influence on climate" is unjustified.

    If there has been any 'massaging of figures' to fit the evidence so as to stop oil money spoilers then the next 5 to 10 years will see changes far above current predictions.

    This I can agree with - if the figures have been "watered down" then, yes, we'll very quickly be able to spot the difference between projections and actual events. Of course, if the figures have been overhyped then the opposite would be true. And, of course, things might go exactly as the projections predict, which would only suggest that the total effect of all forcings had been appropriately calculated, but it would say nothing as to whether the attributions to individual forcings are accurate.

    :help:

    CB

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
    Do we? To what degree of certainty? If we don't fully understand the complexities of our planet's systems then how do we know how those same systems will react to a change in CO2? By that same token, how do we know that our theoretical understanding of CO2 forcing isn't completely negated by natural adaptation by the planet's systems?

    ...............

    We only live in doubt of the 'figures' because they haven't played ball with the way 'we' thought things should work. Because we were missing certain 'componants' of the equation the sums didn't add up. The maths aren't to blame, our lack of understanding of the complexity of the system are the 'skewwed imputs' in it all.(IMHO)

    .............

    What do you mean by "tropical" planetary climates? A temperature increase of 3°C?; 5°C?; 10°C? The historical record (Vostok, in particular) is replete with examples of rapid temperature changes of 3-5°C, as I said in my first post on this thread. What was the special "something" that caused those instances of see-sawing?

    ...............

    No, I mean Elephants and hyenas up the thames type epochs.

    .....................

    I think going back 40,000 years is taking things to extremes. The AGW argument is that there was no significant alteration to "natural changes" until the Industrial Revolution, at which point temperatures (allegedly) started to increase at an unprecedented rate. Going back closer to mankind's origins in an attempt to ram home the point of "our influence on climate" is unjustified.

    ..................

    I'm sorry... i can get peed off with folk who cannot/will not see that 'little old us' could do anything against a planet as huge as ours.......Grrrrr

    ....................

    This I can agree with - if the figures have been "watered down" then, yes, we'll very quickly be able to spot the difference between projections and actual events. Of course, if the figures have been overhyped then the opposite would be true. And, of course, things might go exactly as the projections predict, which would only suggest that the total effect of all forcings had been appropriately calculated, but it would say nothing as to whether the attributions to individual forcings are accurate.

    :)

    CB

    Hmmmmmm......

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
    Do we? To what degree of certainty? If we don't fully understand the complexities of our planet's systems then how do we know how those same systems will react to a change in CO2? By that same token, how do we know that our theoretical understanding of CO2 forcing isn't completely negated by natural adaptation by the planet's systems?

    ...............

    We only live in doubt of the 'figures' because they haven't played ball with the way 'we' thought things should work. Because we were missing certain 'componants' of the equation the sums didn't add up. The maths aren't to blame, our lack of understanding of the complexity of the system are the 'skewwed imputs' in it all.(IMHO)

    Isn't that what I just said?! Mathematically speaking, the "sealed box with heat source" experiment gives us figures for how CO2 increase affects temperature increase. It's precisely because the climate system is so complex that I am arguing that those basic figures can't just be thrown into a debate on climate change - if we don't know all of the factors that might add to or take away from those figures then our models are meaningless.

    What do you mean by "tropical" planetary climates? A temperature increase of 3°C?; 5°C?; 10°C? The historical record (Vostok, in particular) is replete with examples of rapid temperature changes of 3-5°C, as I said in my first post on this thread. What was the special "something" that caused those instances of see-sawing?

    ...............

    No, I mean Elephants and hyenas up the thames type epochs.

    Okay, but I have already said that the occasional large-scale climate changes (in the order of 10-11°C) tend to happen more slowly than the frequent smaller-scale changes (in the order of 2-4°C). If a 3°C temperature change, followed by a 3°C change in the other direction, can happen over 500 years then the current warming is potentially of no real concern (3°C over 500 years is 0.6°C every 100 years - similar to current trends). The large scale warmings tend to be in the order of 10°C over 10,000 years, or only 0.1°C every 100 years - these slower warmings tend to be the ones (historically) that result in significant increases.

    (On a side-note, perhaps the slower warmings tend to increase to such extremes because of their slowness - perhaps rapid warmings are more likely to cause rapid coolings on a sub-millennial time-scale for some reason...interesting thought...might have a look into that!)

    I think going back 40,000 years is taking things to extremes. The AGW argument is that there was no significant alteration to "natural changes" until the Industrial Revolution, at which point temperatures (allegedly) started to increase at an unprecedented rate. Going back closer to mankind's origins in an attempt to ram home the point of "our influence on climate" is unjustified.

    ..................

    I'm sorry... i can get peed off with folk who cannot/will not see that 'little old us' could do anything against a planet as huge as ours.......Grrrrr

    Woah, Nelly! Read back over what I said and you'll see that I said no such thing. Since there are fluctuations in global temperatures well within the accepted limits of nature going back at least 40,000 years, and it is only since the Industrial Revolution that these fluctuations have become outside of natural influences (if you accept the AGW argument, that is), then what mankind did prior to the Industrial Revolution is neither here nor there. Saying we should be reversing mankind's impact on nature since our large-scale pollution of it post-IR is one thing, but saying that we have been sullying the planet since the moment we walked upright (slight exaggeration) is over the top and unsubstantiated.

    :lol:

    CB

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    We are never going to be in a position to see exactly what influence our first swathe of deforestation caused as we, as you've pointed out, let the genii out of the bottle in the 1750's but I am sure that the vast landscape impacts that man had wrought up to then would have had its own little 'push' on our climate system.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

    From the "Gulf Stream" thread:

    C-Bob , our understanding may be 'incomplete' but we have some of the major pieces of the puzzle in place (sun/earth relationship, albedo, continental jet stream influence, oceanic current blocking etc.) to explain past climate 'lurches' and we know none of those 'forcing's' are present, and at work here today yet change continues apace.

    I know most of these threads are for the sake of argument but maybe our time would be better invested in theorising the more extreme scenarios of continued change than the extreme scenarios as to why change isn't happening as we predict it to.

    Most authorities now accept climate change as a given and are scampering to better understand it's potentials on humanity and humanities continuance so maybe we should follow their lead?.

    The 'curtains ' analogy would only take the man walking outside whilst his curtains were shut to bring the 'theory' into question and most of the arguments demoting human influence are as easily debunked.

    The "major pieces of the puzzle" to which you refer are potential explanations for the BIG climatic changes - the large spikes on the Vostok graph. As far as I am aware there is no explanation for the small spikes (the changes of 3-4°C over 500-1000 years ) other than "natural variation".

    Since the historic record is absolutely teeming with these small spikes, it is acceptable to conclude that the current warming is not unusual in terms of the rate at which it is happening. As for the cause, although manmade emissions may seem like a plausible explanation it is currently the only explanation that has been offered.

    If you take away the "manmade emissions" explanation then you are left with no alternative answer. But there is no explanation for the historical "small spikes" either. It is reasonable to suppose that the explanation for the small spikes is the same as the explanation for the current small spike.

    Until such a time as those past small spikes have been explained, and that explanation has been ruled out as the cause of the current warming, there really is no reason to believe that the observed temperature increase has anything to do with human activity.

    I'm not going to follow anyone's lead on accepting AGW - that would be blind acceptance. If I'm going to accept AGW as a theory then I need to know that it's the right answer (or at least as certain as is scientifically possible). As long as I am able to find these little unanswerable questions then I am going to continue to question the "concensus".

    As for the analogy, you say that "The 'curtains ' analogy would only take the man walking outside whilst his curtains were shut to bring the 'theory' into question". This is quite true. But that's the point of the analogy - we have come up with one explanation for global warming: mankind's influence (the analog of "opening the curtains"). We haven't explored other possibilities to anything like the same extent as we have explored our pet theory. In other words, we haven't tried "opening the door" yet! So the analogy still holds up!

    ;)

    CB

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    I also have an interest in the smaller 'fluctuations' (as you know from the 'solar' thread) and do think that there is a mechanism at play (though sometimes 'masked' by the climate at it's appointed appearance time). I still favour a solar solution to the conundrum with a 'long cycle' of sunspot cycles leading to an internal 'rearrangement' of the solar core and a lot more solar output over a short time span.

    This said I've not seen anything that would lead me to believe that the recent increase in the rate of change is linked to solar output.

    So far as the other 'forcing' I do think we have a good enough 'handle' on them to discount them from the recent warming as well.

    So ,for me, I have to go with our own polluting/environmental vandalism as the major player in our recent warming. I will not discount the planet also throwing in the odd 'curve' to mux things up a little (especially our underestimation of the damage we have caused because of the planets abilities to 'soak up' the damage for a time)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
    Like most joe puplic, I thought the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (from what the media keep force feeding us) is higher than any time in the earth's history, also the temperature of the earth is close to an all time high! But whilst researching CO2 levels I came across this web site that differs from what the Government scientists are reporting: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...ml#anchor147264

    What does anyone think of this research and is it flawed?

    Although I think we should wean ourselves off fossil fuels for political reasons, rather than climate change ones, you will not find anywhere in the climate record evidence that C02 levels are a prime mover in shaping global temperatures.The CO2 level changes because of temperature, not the other way round.

    I challenge anyone to show me otherwise.

    On a more amusing note, it was funny to see the BBC News last night going up to Inuit territory in the high arctic to report on the effects of climate change.

    When they found that there weren't any, they quickly shifted the focus of the piece to look at the threat to the Inuit way of life due to the economic migration to towns and cities.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    Although I think we should wean ourselves off fossil fuels for political reasons, rather than climate change ones, you will not find anywhere in the climate record evidence that C02 levels are a prime mover in shaping global temperatures.The CO2 level changes because of temperature, not the other way round.

    I challenge anyone to show me otherwise.

    Erm, I challenge you to show me CO2 isn't a ghg.

    Simply put you can't!

    So, whether CO2 has led or fedback warming in the past matters not a jot to the reality of now when CO2 is clearly being pumped into the atmosphere by the giga tonne by us (along with quanties of other ghg's) - and causing warming.

    Add ghg and you get a warming effect - period. Get used to it :)

    As long as I am able to find these little unanswerable questions then I am going to continue to question the "concensus".

    ...

    CB

    Unanswerable question are, by definition, unanswerable :)

    But, I think Eli has the answer.

    "Anyone who has come up hard and fast against reality understands that there is neither a theory or a model that explains everything. There are always residuals, unexplained anomolies and people on the fringes who will hold onto those for dear life, weaving webs of conspiracy theories that focus only on what remains unexplained. This throws the baby out with the bathwater: the fringe theories might explain the residuals, but they can't deal with the basic facts of the situation."

    Dead, 100%, spot on right imo! Sceptics play nit and pick with the residuals of AGW theory but the fact is it's done a damn good job explaining what is happening, and predictions based on it are right on the money.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    Devonian for PM (as long as you stop using smilies)

    Flattering of course, but that I'm not bald is my only ticked box for that. I thought though that I was quite frugal in my smiley usage (whistling smiley omitted). I'll try harder...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Dunblane
  • Location: Dunblane
    Erm, I challenge you to show me CO2 isn't a ghg.

    Simply put you can't!

    So, whether CO2 has led or fedback warming in the past matters not a jot to the reality of now when CO2 is clearly being pumped into the atmosphere by the giga tonne by us (along with quanties of other ghg's) - and causing warming.

    Add ghg and you get a warming effect - period. Get used to it :)

    Dead, 100%, spot on right imo! Sceptics play nit and pick with the residuals of AGW theory but the fact is it's done a damn good job explaining what is happening, and predictions based on it are right on the money.

    Whoaaa - good work Devonian! Posts like that cut through alot of the 'which side are you on?' nonsense on here. The debate on climate change isn't (or shouldn't be) about 'isms' or 'ists' - but rather how to cut our GHG emissions. It really is that simple.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...