Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let's go back to a time when CO2 levels were this high - 3,500,000 years. What do you notice?

The Last Time Atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million Humans Didn’t Exist – Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

I noticed we're doing a lot better, relatively speaking
Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).
The Arctic was ice free.
Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.


Using the whole "humans didn't exist" argument is odd. Firstly it has no relevance and secondly it reinforces the argument that natural emissions are more than capable of tipping the climate on it's head.

Which brings me to a point not yet mentioned. Undersea volcanoes. Apparently there are something like 3500 active undersea volcanoes (could be wrong on that number) and I wonder if climate boffins really take these into adequate consideration?

For example: Havre eruption leads scientists to biggest undersea volcano

One thing I find a bit head scratching with the MM climate change argument is the sharp rise in temperatures between the early 1900's and about 1940 in an era when the Nazis invaded Poland predominantly on horseback, followed by a cooling to the mid 70's and then a change in trend to warming yet again. Then there's this odd spike in CO2 (is it from the turn of this century?) that just doesn't seem to fit the jigsaw.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I respect the stuff you post Jackdale because unlike some others (and they know who they are) you put thought into it. Even so, you can't have it both ways. You quote a recent geological "global warming" that obviously had no human influence. The numbers also don't add up. That shrine of pro-AGW sites skepticalscience.com lists the proportions of current human CO2 emissions versus natural emissions as 29 gigatons for "us" and 750 gigatons for "them" (aka natural causes) (https://www.skepticalscience.com/hum...-emissions.htm). Besides these values having absolutely no correlation whatsoever that I can see with the chart you posted, all you are essentially proving is that natural emmissions are way higher than 56 million years ago.

The PETM was over 50 million years ago.

I have never denied the existence of natural cycles. In fact, they worked really well maintaining an atmosphere of of 180 to 300 ppm CO2 for at least 800,000 years.

A thermostat is a good example of a negative feedback system that produces minor temperature fluctuations in your home - if you do not disrupt it.

Like a kid playing with a thermostat, we have disrupted the natural cycles.

If input and output are relatively equal we have a stable system, if we increase the input the system overflows. The natural carbon cycle has been disrupted.

1751 - 3 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum. The natural carbon cycle could accommodate that.

2010 - 9167 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum. The natural carbon system cannot accommodate that.

Through carbon isotope analysis the 40% increase on atmospheric CO2 in the intervening years can by directly linked to burning fossil fuels.

Did you read the link to PETM?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The PETM was over 50 million years ago.

I have never denied the existence of natural cycles. In fact, they worked really well maintaining an atmosphere of of 180 to 300 ppm CO2 for at least 800,000 years.

A thermostat is a good example of a negative feedback system that produces minor temperature fluctuations in your home - if you do not disrupt it.

Like a kid playing with a thermostat, we have disrupted the natural cycles.

If input and output are relatively equal we have a stable system, if we increase the input the system overflows. The natural carbon cycle has been disrupted.

1751 - 3 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum. The natural carbon cycle could accommodate that.

2010 - 9167 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum. The natural carbon system cannot accommodate that.

Through carbon isotope analysis the 40% increase on atmospheric CO2 in the intervening years can by directly linked to burning fossil fuels.

Did you read the link to PETM?

Your numbers still don't agree with skeptical sciences values, although I'd guess that their's were inflated. I understand how isotypes "fingerprint" fossil fuel carbon emmisions and even how plant's, apparently, refuse to eat "our" emissions. I still find it somewhat difficult to believe, however, that a total anthropogenic contribution of 3.72% (based on the skeptical science figures - and it does seem higher than the nominally 3% often cited) can be totally responsible for a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. I'd also want to know what the baseline is for this calculation.

At the end of the day - and forgetting about all the misinformation and scare mongering - if you ask me (which no-one does), the debate really is about if there is an underlying natural climate change (as many "deniers" would suggest) or if the climate should remain static with things being equal (as many "alarmists" would suggest).

And I'll repeat yet again that even now, there has been no direct connection, smoking gun that connects CO2 levels with observed changes in climate.

On your PETM link, you may want to explain it to me in your own words because I'm not sure what point you have been trying to make on that one, sorry.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I noticed we're doing a lot better, relatively speaking
Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).
The Arctic was ice free.
Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.


Using the whole "humans didn't exist" argument is odd. Firstly it has no relevance and secondly it reinforces the argument that natural emissions are more than capable of tipping the climate on it's head.

Which brings me to a point not yet mentioned. Undersea volcanoes. Apparently there are something like 3500 active undersea volcanoes (could be wrong on that number) and I wonder if climate boffins really take these into adequate consideration?

For example: Havre eruption leads scientists to biggest undersea volcano

One thing I find a bit head scratching with the MM climate change argument is the sharp rise in temperatures between the early 1900's and about 1940 in an era when the Nazis invaded Poland predominantly on horseback, followed by a cooling to the mid 70's and then a change in trend to warming yet again. Then there's this odd spike in CO2 (is it from the turn of this century?) that just doesn't seem to fit the jigsaw.

As I have mentioned carbon isotope analysis allows to to determine the source of CO2. The USGS has found that human CO2 emissions are 135 times all volcanic activity.

The NAZI blitzkrieg involved Panzer divisions. The Poles were still on horseback.

The 1940's to 1970's moderation in temperatures has been linked to the increased industrial aerosols that accompanied that war and post war boom. Clean Air Acts around the world cleaned up the smog associated with those aerosols and that spurned on some warming.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

As I have mentioned carbon isotope analysis allows to to determine the source of CO2. The USGS has found that human CO2 emissions are 135 times all volcanic activity.

The NAZI blitzkrieg involved Panzer divisions. The Poles were still on horseback.

The 1940's to 1970's moderation in temperatures has been linked to the increased industrial aerosols that accompanied that war and post war boom. Clean Air Acts around the world cleaned up the smog associated with those aerosols and that spurned on some warming.

Germany had a grand total of 4 motorised divisions. They relied upon Stukas for blitzkrieg tactics. Stuka's very quickly disappeared from the front line thereafter as they were unable to compete once opposition forces started to equip with modern weapons.

On the smog issue. Have you ever been to Asia?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Your numbers still don't agree with skeptical sciences values, although I'd guess that their's were inflated. I understand how isotypes "fingerprint" fossil fuel carbon emmisions and even how plant's, apparently, refuse to eat "our" emissions. I still find it somewhat difficult to believe, however, that a total anthropogenic contribution of 3.72% (based on the skeptical science figures - and it does seem higher than the nominally 3% often cited) can be totally responsible for a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. I'd also want to know what the baseline is for this calculation.

At the end of the day - and forgetting about all the misinformation and scare mongering - if you ask me (which no-one does), the debate really is about if there is an underlying natural climate change (as many "deniers" would suggest) or if the climate should remain static with things being equal (as many "alarmists" would suggest).

And I'll repeat yet again that even now, there has been no direct connection, smoking gun that connects CO2 levels with observed changes in climate.

On your PETM link, you may want to explain it to me in your own words because I'm not sure what point you have been trying to make on that one, sorry.

I do not refer to SKS very much.

CO2 accumulates.

No climate scientist claims that climate is static. It was climate scientists who identified the natural cycles.

The deniers refuse to admit that using the atmosphere as a dump for CO2 has any impact.

CO2 is not not only factor in climate change. It is one of the ones over which we can some control.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

On the smog issue. Have you ever been to Asia?

Seen the photos.

Industrial aerosols from Asia have been linked to the current temperature moderation. There are other factors as well.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Seen the photos.

Industrial aerosols from Asia have been linked to the current temperature moderation. There are other factors as well.

I always thought aerosols were just the vogue excuse for temperatures not meeting climate model best estimates. Were they mentioned prior to 2007 in any context? THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Asian aerosols are not a valid excuse for the 'pause' in global warming

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do not refer to SKS very much.

CO2 accumulates.

No climate scientist claims that climate is static. It was climate scientists who identified the natural cycles.

The deniers refuse to admit that using the atmosphere as a dump for CO2 has any impact.

That's an assumption.

CO2 is not not only factor in climate change. It is one of the ones over which we can some control.

So if "we" reduce emissions by 50% which reduces our contribution to 1.9% does that drop anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 to 20% or 38%?

And I again refer to the lag of 800 years for CO2. The impact of this is missing, as far as I can tell, from the values you have parroted.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That's an assumption.



So if "we" reduce emissions by 50% which reduces our contribution to 1.9% does that drop anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 to 20% or 38%?

And I again refer to the lag of 800 years for CO2. The impact of this is missing, as far as I can tell, from the values you have parroted.

As long we continue to add CO2 by burning fossil fuels to the atmosphere, it will accumulate. That is not part of the natural carbon cycle.

The trigger for warming in the past has probably been Milkanovitch cycles. That induces warming which releases CO2 from the oceans which induces more warming. That is a positive feedback loop.

Give this your perusal - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

Currently we took the Milankovitch cycles out of the equation by increasing CO2 all on our own.

[Udacha]

Follow the money to get to the truth!!!

Al Gore receives 350k for every lecture he has and I'm sure he has made millions off of his movie. Why is it that the USA has most of the pollution regulations? I have been to Russia a few times and the air is so bad it's hard to breath and my eyes were always red and it's probably the same in many other countries.

From what I understand, co2 is a "result" of global warming not the "cause" and the ocean produces far more co2 than humans and also holds 50 times more co2 than what is in the air. If we get rid of that nasty ocean, where will we sail? And don't forget that all plants need co2 to live and their exhaust is oxygen which we need.

When I was in High School in the 70s we were going into an Ice Age because of "freon", what a load of crap that was!! My dad showed me a little experiment in the garage--- he filled a balloon with freon and let it go, it fell to the ground. So how in the hell was freon supposed to make a hole in the Ozone layer ?

The Earth has gone through changes and cycles for billions of years and it will continue to for billions of years. To believe that we humans can control this planet is insane at best.

I would worry more about natural catastrophes like Yellowstone blowing up than how much exhaust my car makes. It's all about the money just like the Ice Age scare a few decades ago.

I'm all for a cleaner environment, but it has gotten way out of hand

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Udacha

Follow the money to get to the truth!!!

Al Gore receives 350k for every lecture he has and I'm sure he has made millions off of his movie. Why is it that the USA has most of the pollution regulations? I have been to Russia a few times and the air is so bad it's hard to breath and my eyes were always red and it's probably the same in many other countries.

From what I understand, co2 is a "result" of global warming not the "cause" and the ocean produces far more co2 than humans and also holds 50 times more co2 than what is in the air. If we get rid of that nasty ocean, where will we sail? And don't forget that all plants need co2 to live and their exhaust is oxygen which we need.

When I was in High School in the 70s we were going into an Ice Age because of "freon", what a load of crap that was!! My dad showed me a little experiment in the garage--- he filled a balloon with freon and let it go, it fell to the ground. So how in the hell was freon supposed to make a hole in the Ozone layer ?

The Earth has gone through changes and cycles for billions of years and it will continue to for billions of years. To believe that we humans can control this planet is insane at best.

I would worry more about natural catastrophes like Yellowstone blowing up than how much exhaust my car makes. It's all about the money just like the Ice Age scare a few decades ago.

I'm all for a cleaner environment, but it has gotten way out of hand

Amigo...
You have got to realize what we are dealing with here.
MMGW Cultists are good people, but they just Believe so deeply in the movement that they turn their face away from anyone or any data that could dare question their belief system. In the same way a religious person clams up and doesn't like to discuss things that would challenge their Religious beliefs the same happens with the MMGW Cultists. It's not that they know MMGW is a hoax, they don't. They really do believe it lock stock and barrel and those they don't believe are looked on as some religions do as dirty unenlightened "deniers". You don't think the term "denier" was picked by accident do you? No, it is intentionally used as a religious and cultural taboo. You are anti-gay right, racist, against diversity, and want to club baby fur seals if you are a Denier.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Heck...if some of you MMGW Cultists are gullable enough to think the Ice caps will be gone in 10-10yrs, I found the perfect deal for you in my inbox this morning.

Can you post a link to ANYONE, anywhere, that is suggesting the ice caps will be gone in 10 years?

Seriously.

From the article that someone else posted, which Reefmagnet suggested is 8000 years, I work out could possibly be 200 years at the most. But like I said I'm no mathametician. But, to get to 200 years, we are looking at Billions upon Billions of dollars in disaster reaction leading up to that time. Millions upon millions of displaced persons, the extinction of many species of fauna (far more than todays disaserous figures).

I ackowledge that the word 'catastropic' is alarmist. But if we see the trend of climate continuing in the way it currently seems to be, then my grandchildren are going to really see the brunt of this and whilst that might not matter to you and I personally, I think most people have some sense of concern for our future children and grand children.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

As long we continue to add CO2 by burning fossil fuels to the atmosphere, it will accumulate. That is not part of the natural carbon cycle.

The trigger for warming in the past has probably been Milkanovitch cycles. That induces warming which releases CO2 from the oceans which induces more warming. That is a positive feedback loop.

Give this your perusal - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

Currently we took the Milankovitch cycles out of the equation by increasing CO2 all on our own.

As soon as I see the word "probably" I, and you, should interpret that in the correct context with that being that no one really knows. Or to put it another way the Earth's climate system and the mechanisms that affect it are not fully understood despite the extraordinary levels of research undertaken. Hence why I keep noting that even the IPCC doesn't explicitly claim as fact that climate change is a direct result of CO2 in the atmosphere, let alone the anthropogenic component. Assuming that CO2 unrelentingly drives temperature in the climate is, imo, extreme oversimplification that doesn't even fully align with what's happened to the climate in the past.

But heck. I'm not a climate scientist. However, it's the little articles like this one (Note dated 2009):
World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns | Environment | The Guardian
That put somewhat of a dampener on the "trust the science" approach.

The is we have film makers using 3 years of visual observations backed by absolutely no data to jump up and down yelling "See, I told you AGW is real" and then we have others jumping up and down yelling "10 or 20 years is not long enough to define a trend, therefore AGW is real and is happening" when armed with fistfuls of observed data that indicates, at best, stalled warming.

All that aside "Deniers" and "Alarmists" alike should be hoping that it turns out that a) The earth in fact does have climatic negative feedback mechanisms and b) CO2 at current minuscule ppm levels is really not that important a factor in catastrophic - and I will use that term because that is the crux that drives the fervour - global warming because if so then every single argument is null and void. If it turns out that this is wrong then no matter what we are doomed as we have been unfortunate enough to evolve on a planet that sits on a razor's edge line of climate stability.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Udacha

Follow the money to get to the truth!!!

Al Gore receives 350k for every lecture he has and I'm sure he has made millions off of his movie. Why is it that the USA has most of the pollution regulations? I have been to Russia a few times and the air is so bad it's hard to breath and my eyes were always red and it's probably the same in many other countries.

From what I understand, co2 is a "result" of global warming not the "cause" and the ocean produces far more co2 than humans and also holds 50 times more co2 than what is in the air. If we get rid of that nasty ocean, where will we sail? And don't forget that all plants need co2 to live and their exhaust is oxygen which we need.

When I was in High School in the 70s we were going into an Ice Age because of "freon", what a load of crap that was!! My dad showed me a little experiment in the garage--- he filled a balloon with freon and let it go, it fell to the ground. So how in the hell was freon supposed to make a hole in the Ozone layer ?

The Earth has gone through changes and cycles for billions of years and it will continue to for billions of years. To believe that we humans can control this planet is insane at best.

I would worry more about natural catastrophes like Yellowstone blowing up than how much exhaust my car makes. It's all about the money just like the Ice Age scare a few decades ago.

I'm all for a cleaner environment, but it has gotten way out of hand

The ocean is net sink of CO2.



You are confusing the the global cooling myth with the hole in the ozone - two very different things. The Montreal Protocol helped reduce CFC's thereby stabilizing the ozone layer.

Clean Acts around the world going back to the 70's helped eliminate a lot smog.

In the 70's the ratio of warming science to cooling science article was 6:1.

CO2 is plant food. So is N,K, and P - dump a whack of that on your lawn and wacth what happens. Like everything there are optimal limits.