Global Warming Network News- AKA- The Polar Water Caps
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 17:41
VIEWED: 2400
PAGE 3 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
First, ice core samples and tree rings are not thermometers.
I think it's fair to say I know that Finn, the point is there is data in the Ice cores and tree rings that has nothing to do with CO2 but does indicate higher temperatures. Data older than 600,000 years is only for CO2 levels.
Given the differing data sources we can be sure of the temperature variations over 600,000 years, with just CO2 data all we can tell reliably is that there was more Carbon Dioxide. If the greenhouse effect is true we can infer that temperatures were also high.
The Ice cores and tree rings support the Greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect supports the idea that since there was high CO2 the global temperature was probably high.
Quote:
There are no direct measurements of temperature beyond a few generations. However, there is measured proxy data for temperature that goes back many millions of years based on examination of paleosols and fossils.
Again this data is for CO2 levels only, which may infer temperature, but there’s no evidence independent of CO2 levels that goes back further than 600,000 years.
Quote:
You cannot claim that the greenhouse theory works today, but not during the Paleozoic, and dismiss it with “the Earth was a different place” stuff.
That's not what I'm saying Finn, that's your assertion of what I'm saying. I'm saying the threshold for a runaway greenhouse effect is lower now because of the reduction of the negative feedbacks that prevent it.
But why can't I dismiss it by saying the Earth was a different place? The only reliable data for temperature is that from the Ice Cores and the Tree rings because it comes from multiple sources, not just CO2 levels.
That shows that the global temperature now, along with the CO2 levels, is higher than during any period in the last 600,000 years. It is also increasing at a much greater than ever before.
Also looking at the graphs it appears to show that the Industrial Revolution occurred just as we were on the peak of one of these spikes. If that is correct then we should now be on a downward cycle, yet it's getting warm?
All these things lead me to believe the world is a very different place than it was before. But then I could just look out my window and see the houses and cars
.Trees act as a negative feedback, keeping the greenhouse effect in check. Less Trees, less negative feedback. That doesn't mean that there will defiantly be lower CO2 levels with more Trees, it means the threshold for a run away greenhouse effect is higher.
Also there is evidence to support there being much more forest than today.
For a start the present levels of forest are unnaturally small because we've cut most of it down over the last few thousand years. It is reasonable to assume that the natural level of forestation then is no smaller than it is now. It's also reasonable to assume that no aggressive intelligent species were around to cut them down.
Then there’s Coal, that as I'm sure you know is the remains of ancient plant life.
Quote:
If there were significantly higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the Paleozoic, then the greenhouse theory says the temperature should have been much higher. If we don’t accept that, then we can’t argue that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing increased temperature today based on the greenhouse theory.
I never disputed that.
Quote:
Have either of you played a PC game called Civilization IV? This along with Rome:Total War has become my favorite PC games, since none of the new WWII first person shooting games will run on my computer.
I've never played Civilisation IV, but I have played the earlier ones. I couldn't really get into them, but that was sometime ago, I've played some similar games that I did end up liking a lot, Empire Earth II is similar, but you can see the buildings as you add them to your cities. It's a lot like Civ in a lot of ways, with a bit of an Age of
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t know what graph that you’re talking about, but the Vostok ice core samples clearly seem to indicate that the temperature was higher on several other occassions.
Originally posted by citizen:
That shows that the global temperature now, along with the CO2 levels, is higher than during any period in the last 600,000 years. It is also increasing at a much greater than ever before.
Quote:Again, I don’t know what graphs you’re referring to but if you’re looking at a graph of recent mean global temperature, as one imagines you would have to be if you were pointing out something as specific as the Industrial Revolution, then you can’t usually just look at any peak and say that is the cusp of a cycle. There’s usually way too much variation. So I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
Originally posted by citizen:
Also looking at the graphs it appears to show that the Industrial Revolution occurred just as we were on the peak of one of these spikes. If that is correct then we should now be on a downward cycle, yet it's getting warm?
Quote:Measurements suggest that carbon dioxide levels may have been as high as 20 times current levels during the Phanerozoic. A Venusian greenhouse effect that occurs on the earth is unlikely to be the result of carbon dioxide, so trees may not provide that much feedback. The only conceivable way a runaway greenhouse effect could occur on this planet is if the temperature rose high enough to saturate the atmosphere with water vapor. If that didn’t happen during the Silurian, when carbon dioxide concentrations were at there highest measured and, according to the greenhouse effect, the temperature would have been very high, then how likely is it to happen any time soon? I wouldn’t think much.
Originally posted by citizen:
Trees act as a negative feedback, keeping the greenhouse effect in check. Less Trees, less negative feedback. That doesn't mean that there will defiantly be lower CO2 levels with more Trees, it means the threshold for a run away greenhouse effect is higher.
Quote:I played Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, but the more recent ones are way too much of a load on my computer. I’ve never played Empire Earth, but I did play Age of Empires, long ago. I like Rome a lot, but I also am really big into Roman history so I had ulterior motives. It had a lot of problems, crashes and really sluggish runtime and graphics issues, but I overlooked them.
Originally posted by citizen:
I've never played Civilisation IV, but I have played the earlier ones. I couldn't really get into them, but that was sometime ago, I've played some similar games that I did end up liking a lot, Empire Earth II is similar, but you can see the buildings as you add them to your cities. It's a lot like Civ in a lot of ways, with a bit of an Age of Empires game thrown in. I might give it another chance though, because what you mention sounds interesting. The only problem is the way I play RTS games means that they usually take all day...
I tried Rome, but it was never really my thing, I'm not that big on RTT's.
I can highly suggest Call of Duty 2 though, if you can afford and justify the upgrade its well worth it. The games great though it doesn't last long I was through it in a few hours, plus the British characterisations were atrocious.
Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citzen,
You missed the point. If humans heat the earth, they do so gradually. They would kill humans long before they would endanger plants and insects, temperaturewise. After having killed humans, humans would cease to polute, thus ending global warming.
Even if fringe humans survive, they will not polute, because it is the sheer number of humans that exist in combination with their completely irresponsible behavior that causes polution and thus global warming.
Personally, I'm more concered with running out of oil and having more stupid wars over it than the global warming effect, but all else being equal, we should use non-poluting fuel. No one takes into consideration that the local effect of polution is far more drastic than the global effect, and the cancers caused by benzpyrene and the brain damage caused by carbon monoxide are going to riddle all urban residents, so were I one, I'd be even more concerned.
I read an interesting analysis a couple of years back about the race riots in LA. Blacks and whites were suddenly at each others throats during the rodney king trial. The writer of the article proposed the radical theory that this was not about race, but about the intense rage caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. CO levels in LA are far higher than other places because of an air poacket created around the city by the ocean winds and the mountains.
Burning fossil fuels is really bad for humans, but it's not at all bad for the Earth. The Earth is quite happy with the development. It's ourselves we are extincting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No Dreamtrove, I got your point, I'm saying it's not necessarily the case.
Read my post again, most of it is disputing your factual error that life on Earth could survive at Venus temperatures. This is plainly not the case and I knew I had to do more than just say you're wrong, because you would dispute it.
The last part is a hint that if we quick started a runaway greenhouse effect Humans disappearing wouldn't suddenly stop it, in fact one theory I've heard has said that it may worsen the effect, and that theory is backed up by some real world data.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
I read an interesting analysis a couple of years back about the race riots in LA. Blacks and whites were suddenly at each others throats during the rodney king trial. The writer of the article proposed the radical theory that this was not about race, but about the intense rage caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. CO levels in LA are far higher than other places because of an air poacket created around the city by the ocean winds and the mountains.
I don't see where you're coming from with this, I mean so what?
Quote:
Burning fossil fuels is really bad for humans, but it's not at all bad for the Earth. The Earth is quite happy with the development. It's ourselves we are extincting.
Dreamtrove if Humans go so will a lot of other species. The fact is to kill off Humans would take a mass extinction possibly greater than the one that killed off the Dinosaurs, because of our ability to protect ourselves with technology and use our technology to adapt to a new environment far faster than most other forms of life.
So whatever way you cut it's not just us who are going to lose out, but even if we were that's enough. I don't want my grandkids to die because it's not cost effective to use non-polluting fuels.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:You're obviously not taking into account the ones who seen a REAL UFO
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Global warming has become like seeing a UFO.
Wait untill you've lived a few more years, sonny, the Earth is a-changing, and I'm aware of it.(If it looks like a duck...)
BTW, it has nothing to do with sock-puppet Bush, Evil Clinton, Dark Lord Cheney, or anyone else.
Earth changes climates according to her own schedule, and she votes Independent.
Chrisisall
Oh, I've SEEN a UFO before. And it was in broad day light too. But it wasn't a alien space ship. Too often folks interchange 'UFO' to mean exactly that...alien space craft.
As per the Earth, when has it ever NOT been changing ? That's the big, beautiful secret that we don't hear when it comes to our Enviro-friendly gang. The imagry of a timeless, unchanging , unspoiled and pristine world which is in complete harmony, or would be were it not for mankind, is a fairy tale. How do I know ? I study paleontology, for fun
This planet has changed flora and fauna more times than YoSaffBridge has had husbands!
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I posed the idea that warming was occurring with or without our help, and Finn seems to have backed me up, now you, AURaptor, also look to be in agreement...
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As per the Earth, when has it ever NOT been changing ? That's the big, beautiful secret that we don't hear when it comes to our Enviro-friendly gang.
I am very choked up...
There may be tears Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The thing is Chris, yeah the Earth warms and cools naturally, but it doesn't do it this quickly. If you look at the temperature and CO2 levels everything is normal for the last 400,000 years, then the industrial revolution takes place and weird sh*t abounds. The CO2 levels skyrocket faster than ever seen before, and if you look at the temperature graphs where they usually rise peak and fall we're actually now sitting on a high plateau. This is unprecedented and the only difference between now and the natural cycles is the industrial revolution.
This is a fact that the Enviro-Hating pollution-loving gang likes to cover up. They say “the Earths always changing” well not this fast it doesn’t.
But for AURaptors benefit:
Yes, pumping tons of greenhouse gases, carcinogens and other nasties into the atmosphere has no effect; really, it’s good for us, especially the 1% of the population getting rich off it. We aren’t in the middle of a Cancer epidemic, oh no, everything will be fine, it’s actually getting colder. Can you see the rainbow, oh and is that a pot of gold with your name on it?
While there's Oil to burn trying to keep the species alive is bad for business, so let’s kill us all, it'll probably happen after we're dead anyway, so someone else will have to deal with it and in the meantime we all have yachts!
Halleluiah!
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Indeed, Earth isn't supposed to change this quickly. We got records you know ;). Scientific ones. And whats happening right now is not how it tends to happen in the natural order of things.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(post deleted)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My whole point is that the dumasses that say man is the sole cause of global warming, and the dumasses that say there IS no global warming (or, it's TOTALLY natural, what there is of it) need to see a middle ground, and, like Finn suggests, figure out ways to cope and maybe even survive (depending how cold it's gonna get after the 'liberation of h20' from the ice caps).
Originally posted by citizen:
The thing is Chris, yeah the Earth warms and cools naturally, but it doesn't do it this quickly. This is a fact that the Enviro-Hating pollution-loving gang likes to cover up. They say “the Earths always changing” well not this fast it doesn’t.
I have no doubt that man is speeding things up quite measurably (and the crap that ain't greenhouse-y certainly is not good for us either ( unless your ivory tower is above the polution).
At least we are all recognizing that there is a problem, and that's good, isn't it?
Moderator Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME