It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A timeline of Earth's average temperature from the Ice Age onward in one XKCD comic

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: M5xaz

True, we did not cause the end of the last glacial period.
That is attributable to orbital and axial conditions. Things which, all else being equal, should be showing us cooling not warming.




Youre talking about position in the precessional period right?


Honestly, with regard to human CO2 emissions, my biggest concerns are ocean acidification due to CO2 absorption and our emissions being the "tipping factor" with the addition of a volcanic activity, particularly, large and numerous eruptions.



edit on 13-9-2016 by OneGoal because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: Phage

Yes a combination, not solely based off greenhouse gasses

Comparing CO2 in warm and cold periods in geologic history

Does a good of highlighting that while contributory, CO2 is not the sole reason for warming or cooling.



The thing to bear in mind is that these are proxies, not empirical measurements, and there’s no error/uncertainty shown. Of course at the present, we have ~ 390ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is nothing I dispute, not does any other skeptic I know of. What is clear from this study though is that our current period of increased CO2 is riding on the back of natural variability of CO2 concentration, which has been observed to occur with regularity over the past 1.5 million years. Of course the question arises as to how much the present concentrations will affect our slide into the next glaciation, if at all. If we are lucky, our “geoengineering” of the planet with some extra CO2 may very well be a lucky break for humanity. Notice that those peaks in CO2 and SST, the most recent of which is the very brief period of the rise of man, are quite short compared with the much longer periods of cooler temperatures.


And worryingly



That minimum pCO2 920,000 years ago of 155ppm comes dangerously close to the value at which photosynthetic function shuts down, said to be around 140-150ppm. Earth came close to losing its plant life then.


Earth could been very very different if levels dropped lower, what caused that drop ? And more importantly could the drop be cyclical ? Because even at 1.5million years of data, it's still smallscale compared to Earths entire timeline.

However one could also quite easily argue there is no cycle and it's completely random due to random celestial and volcanic events

That's worrying?

What about this:


This happens because:

  • Our CO2 production is combining buried carbon with oxygen in the air, consuming it.
  • The reason for this is because O2 does not come from CO2; it comes from H2O in photosynthesis.
  • Plants get more water-efficient as CO2 rises, meaning they need less water and so produce less O2.
    edit on 20Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:01:02 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: OneGoal
Yes. Axial precession does play a part. There are a number of other factors as well. There is also the cyclical change in Earth's obliquity as well as a "wobble" in Earth's orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OneGoal
Yes. Axial precession does play a part. There are a number of other factors as well. There is also the cyclical change in Earth's obliquity as well as a "wobble" in Earth's orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...


I'm of the thought that whether or not human influence is a deciding factor in the climate's warming/cooling - we should be doing everything we can (within reason) to at the least not worsen the situation.

However for the sake of argument, you've listed a few of the other factors that play a part in climate change. Based on the small amount of data we have (relatively speaking within the context of the Earth's age), how are we able to discern human influence from those other factors?



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Navieko

We have a good amount of data. We know how much the Earth's orbit changes. We know how much its tilt changes. We know how the Sun's energy output changes. Simply put, those factors indicate that the world should be cooling (very gradually). It isn't.

The thing that has changed most is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The rapid warming we are measuring is in keeping with that change. Could something else be involved? Yes. But what? Does it make sense to blame it on something we may be unaware of when what we are aware of fits the bill?

Something other than smoking may cause lung cancer in smokers. Right?
edit on 9/13/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

You don't like the chart ?
Fine.
Take this one then,covering the past 500 million years:



Perspective.
Again.
The longer the time scale,the more it becomes apparent that:
a- the present is not a particularly warm period in Earth history
b- historic temperature variations in Earth history have also been far greater than at present.
c- alarmist models that predict large temperature rises have failed
d- even in the unlikely event that the 2050 or the 2100 "predictions" should come to pass, temperatures would still be
low by Earth history standards
e- given the absence of humans for most of Earth history,temperature variations most likely due to normal natural
Milankovitch cycles and/or variations in solar activity

...and life prospered throughout....

Relax.
Don't get so worked up by Al Gore's "pay me or we all die" get rich quick schemes....
edit on 13-9-2016 by M5xaz because:



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Because the Royer / Veizer results are indicative of the temperature of shallow tropical seas, they are unlikely to be fully representative of global average surface air temperature variation. The anomalies are plotted here expanded by a factor of two, as a very approximate conversion. Multiple confounding factors affect interpretation of samples this old, so panel 1 is best viewed as a qualitative indication of temperature (warmer/colder)[3].

commons.wikimedia.org...:All_palaeotemps.png





temperatures would still be low by Earth history standards

And so, would have no effect on human civilization?



e- given the absence of humans for most of Earth history,temperature variations most likely due to normal natural
That is a non-sequitur. There are forest fires which are not caused by humans. I guess humans can't cause them.

edit on 9/13/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/13/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: M5xaz

Because the Royer / Veizer results are indicative of the temperature of shallow tropical seas, they are unlikely to be fully representative of global average surface air temperature variation. The anomalies are plotted here expanded by a factor of two, as a very approximate conversion. Multiple confounding factors affect interpretation of samples this old, so panel 1 is best viewed as a qualitative indication of temperature (warmer/colder)[3].

commons.wikimedia.org...:All_palaeotemps.png





temperatures would still be low by Earth history standards

And so, would have no effect on human civilization?



e- given the absence of humans for most of Earth history,temperature variations most likely due to normal natural
That is a non-sequitur. There are forest fires which are not caused by humans. I guess humans can't cause them.


1-In Northern countries, summer/winter temperature variations can be as much as -30C to +30 C, +60C variation- somehow civilization appears to survive just fine,even thrive,judging by the quality of the beer there....


2-CO2 is a TRACE GAS- despite all of the machinations of modern humans, observed variations are in the tenths of degrees at worse, with no certain correlation to CO2 levels. Human-caused variations in temperature, even if real, are minuscule compared to the magnitude of the natural cycles which we do not control - compare the variations of 18C 300 million years ago on the chart.

You are comparing the heat from rubbing our hands to your (natural) forest fire....

Again, relax...



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Greven

You don't like the chart ?
Fine.
Take this one then,covering the past 500 million years:



Perspective.
Again.
The longer the time scale,the more it becomes apparent that:
a- the present is not a particularly warm period in Earth history
b- historic temperature variations in Earth history have also been far greater than at present.
c- alarmist models that predict large temperature rises have failed
d- even in the unlikely event that the 2050 or the 2100 "predictions" should come to pass, temperatures would still be
low by Earth history standards
e- given the absence of humans for most of Earth history,temperature variations most likely due to normal natural
Milankovitch cycles and/or variations in solar activity

...and life prospered throughout....

Relax.
Don't get so worked up by Al Gore's "pay me or we all die" get rich quick schemes....

So you have little response to the critiques of your past chart. Interesting. Also, you again link some random chart with no attribution. Still, it's not as obviously flawed.

Speaking of perspective, please note the degrees Celsius scale on the left. Within the confines of the chart spanning 500 million years are a variance in temperature of about +15 to -6 degrees Celsius from the 1960-1990 mean (~14°C). Now, I want you to understand: 2015 was more than 1 Celsius above the earliest measured annual temperature. It's 1 1/3rd degrees above the lowest measured annual temperature (1909). Now, look back at that chart.

a- once upon a time, the Earth had a molten surface, since it was struck by something hard enough that the Moon formed out of the crust. Yeah, # happens, but I sure wouldn't want to be there.
b- Not in a long, long time, especially if you consider the rate of change.
c- I disagree, they've been pretty accurate.
d- Perhaps you've missed the memo. This year-to-date has been 1 degree Celsius above that 0 C line on that chart. That's halfway to that 2050 point, and if the temperature continues rising at this rate (1 C over the 1960-1990 baseline in that chart), the 2050 point will be easily exceeded. Last year was only a little cooler. Ain't looking so great.
f- That's just terrible logic. We are greatly altering the Earth's chemistry. Did you not just see the oxygen chart I posted? Go do some reading.

I don't understand why people always bring up Al Gore.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: M5xaz

Because the Royer / Veizer results are indicative of the temperature of shallow tropical seas, they are unlikely to be fully representative of global average surface air temperature variation. The anomalies are plotted here expanded by a factor of two, as a very approximate conversion. Multiple confounding factors affect interpretation of samples this old, so panel 1 is best viewed as a qualitative indication of temperature (warmer/colder)[3].

commons.wikimedia.org...:All_palaeotemps.png





temperatures would still be low by Earth history standards

And so, would have no effect on human civilization?



e- given the absence of humans for most of Earth history,temperature variations most likely due to normal natural
That is a non-sequitur. There are forest fires which are not caused by humans. I guess humans can't cause them.

2-CO2 is a TRACE GAS- despite all of the machinations of modern humans, observed variations are in the tenths of degrees at worse, with no certain correlation to CO2 levels. Human-caused variations in temperature, even if real, are minuscule compared to the magnitude of the natural cycles which we do not control - compare the variations of 18C 300 million years ago on the chart.

You are comparing the heat from rubbing our hands to your (natural) forest fire....

Again, relax...

Again, you misunderstand:

originally posted by: Greven
An increase in CO2 concentrations has been observed in real life conditions to reradiate thermal energy back to the surface:

The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.

Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz



observed variations are in the tenths of degrees at worse, with no certain correlation to CO2 levels.

False



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
I would expect things to warm up if you are coming out of an ice age... The time frame for the warm up is a serious question and where the peak will be before the oscillation starts over again for another freeze that is an appropriate question IMO..?


Yes, a good question. Expected peak: the Holocene Optimum (6000 BCE?) is where you expect the 'coming out of ice age' warming to stop.

Because about then the orbital parameters which were driving to warming have stopped and are now driving to cooling. These are very well known now and are calculatable exactly.

And as you can see, there was a slow decline in temperature (with some slow oscillation) from around then until 1850-1900 or so, as we expect from the known decrease orbital forcing. That stopped when the effect of humans burning fossil fuel starting driving temperature rapidly upwards, far overwhelming the orbital induced cooling.

Thanks to humans, everything is totally different. Because that fossil fuel now being burnt wasn't ever in the climate picture of that entire picture---you'd have to scroll back dozens of meters on your screen to see when that carbon was once in the atmosphere.

We're talking 100 million years vs 20,000 years, continents were in totally different places, and bacteria & fungi had not evolved the ability to break down certain dead plant materials, and therefore those ended up turning into coal and removing lots of carbon from the atmosphere.

They do have that ability now, so that ancient carbon now coming into the biosphere will never go away.

edit on 14-9-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


edit on 14-9-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

500 million years ago, vertebrates didn't even exist. That's totally irrelevant to the impact of climate change humans are making now upon 8 billlion humans in technological civilization, evolved for and deeply dependent on resources & parameters of TODAY's Earth.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: Phage

But the CO2 on its own is NOT causing the warming trend, therefore one can argue that man is not causing the warming, despite others wanting us to believe it, none of us are arguing that there isn't an increase in CO2 what we're arguing is that the increase in CO2 is not the sole contributor to the warming trend


What else is contributing to that trend, and what is the scientific evidence for that? How does that evidence negate the evidence for CO2 contributing?


therefore we are not responsible for something which is entirely cyclical in nature


How does "not the sole contributor" go to "entirely cyclical"?

What is the physical nature of "that cycle"? How is it justified by the observations?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: Phage

But the CO2 on its own is NOT causing the warming trend, therefore one can argue that man is not causing the warming, despite others wanting us to believe it, none of us are arguing that there isn't an increase in CO2 what we're arguing is that the increase in CO2 is not the sole contributor to the warming trend


What else is contributing to that trend, and what is the scientific evidence for that? How does that evidence negate the evidence for CO2 contributing?


therefore we are not responsible for something which is entirely cyclical in nature


How does "not the sole contributor" go to "entirely cyclical"?

What is the physical nature of "that cycle"? How is it justified by the observations?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Greven

You don't like the chart ?
Fine.
Take this one then,covering the past 500 million years:



Perspective.
Again.
The longer the time scale,the more it becomes apparent that:
a- the present is not a particularly warm period in Earth history
b- historic temperature variations in Earth history have also been far greater than at present.
c- alarmist models that predict large temperature rises have failed
d- even in the unlikely event that the 2050 or the 2100 "predictions" should come to pass, temperatures would still be
low by Earth history standards
e- given the absence of humans for most of Earth history,temperature variations most likely due to normal natural
Milankovitch cycles and/or variations in solar activity

...and life prospered throughout....

Relax.
Don't get so worked up by Al Gore's "pay me or we all die" get rich quick schemes....

So you have little response to the critiques of your past chart. Interesting. Also, you again link some random chart with no attribution. Still, it's not as obviously flawed.

Speaking of perspective, please note the degrees Celsius scale on the left. Within the confines of the chart spanning 500 million years are a variance in temperature of about +15 to -6 degrees Celsius from the 1960-1990 mean (~14°C). Now, I want you to understand: 2015 was more than 1 Celsius above the earliest measured annual temperature. It's 1 1/3rd degrees above the lowest measured annual temperature (1909). Now, look back at that chart.

a- once upon a time, the Earth had a molten surface, since it was struck by something hard enough that the Moon formed out of the crust. Yeah, # happens, but I sure wouldn't want to be there.
b- Not in a long, long time, especially if you consider the rate of change.
c- I disagree, they've been pretty accurate.
d- Perhaps you've missed the memo. This year-to-date has been 1 degree Celsius above that 0 C line on that chart. That's halfway to that 2050 point, and if the temperature continues rising at this rate (1 C over the 1960-1990 baseline in that chart), the 2050 point will be easily exceeded. Last year was only a little cooler. Ain't looking so great.
f- That's just terrible logic. We are greatly altering the Earth's chemistry. Did you not just see the oxygen chart I posted? Go do some reading.

I don't understand why people always bring up Al Gore.


Al Gore is a PT Barnum figure which the left fails to recognize as such; Michael Mann is such another example, that also shows scientific fraud.

With respect to terrible logic overall, one need only look at your poor responses; climate models ARE failures.The most charitable that can be said is that they are wild exaggerations, which are NOT reached even NOW.


And Nature is not cooperating with your doomsday narrative - the number of hurricanes is at 30 years lows, despite "adjusted" rising temperatures
www.theweathernetwork.com...
edit on 14-9-2016 by M5xaz because:



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: M5xaz

500 million years ago, vertebrates didn't even exist. That's totally irrelevant to the impact of climate change humans are making now upon 8 billlion humans in technological civilization, evolved for and deeply dependent on resources & parameters of TODAY's Earth.


NO.

Totally relevant.

The chart shows the scope of natural climate variation over the past 500 million years to today, not just 500 million years ago.

The variation range since humans appeared is insignificant.

The Earth, on its own, goes through climate cycles

Comprehension issues?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz




.The most charitable that can be said is that they are wild exaggerations, which are NOT reached even NOW.

That chart seems to be short a couple of years. Got something more recent?


But are you aware that satellite derived temperatures are somewhat problematic? They involve quite a bit of "adjusting", as you put it. They don't really seem to correlate very well with surface and balloon measurements. In any case, here's the latest from Roy Spencer hisself. He's a pretty vocal AGW skeptic, btw.
www.drroyspencer.com...


Something I've found odd about that chart. There is no sign of the 1998 El Nino spike (as seen above). I wonder what data they are actually showing.

Try this one. Notice the El Nino spike? Now plug Dr. Spencer's latest onto it. His 0.5º for a 13 month average.


 


The Earth, on its own, goes through climate cycles
Indeed it does. But the cycle is out of whack. So, what is causing the current warming "cycle" when it should be cooling?

edit on 9/14/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/14/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join