Originally posted by Outland
The image below illustrates...
...
I hope you're all feeling really guilty now.
Originally posted by loam
Go on! Try some... The amount of sprinkles is very...very...small.
. The C12 isotope is the most abundant and is the only carbon isotope created by combusting fossil fuels, while the latter two are created by radiation in the biosphere. Given enough time, C13 and C14 will decay back into C12, but the large ratio of C12 to the other two isotopes indicates the great effect that fossil fuel use has on the transfer of stored carbon to atmospheric carbon.
www.iitap.iastate.edu...
large climate changes in Europe/Near East during the last 15,000 calendar years (note that these dates are in 'real' years not radiocarbon years).
14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.
13,500 y.a. - climates about as warm and moist as today's
13,000 y.a. 'Older Dryas' cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.
12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas. Much drier than present over much of Europe and the Middle East, though wetter-than-present conditions at first prevailed in NW Europe.
11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly over a few decades, back to relative warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Isotope Stage 1).
11,500 - 10,500 y.a. - climates possibly still slightly cooler than present-day.
9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's
about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool phase lasting about 200 years, about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas. Wetter-than-present conditions in NW Europe, but drier than present in eastern Turkey.
8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates generally slightly warmer and moister than today's.
(but; at 5,900 y.a. - a possible sudden and short-lived cold phase corresponding to the 'elm decline').
Since about 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present
2,600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas
(but; 1,400 y.a. {536-538 A.D.} wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere).
(Followed by 'Little Ice Age' about 700-200 ya)
Climate on earth is affected by two main influences: the amount of solar
energy which reaches the earth and the dynamics of the biosphere.
Theories concerning solar energy break further into two: how much energy
the sun actually emits (solar constant theory); and how much radiation
actually reaches the earth's surface at any given latitude (the astronomic
theory).
The radiation theory says that the radiation of energy from the sun is not
constant, but varies, with periodicities for the solar wind (a stream of ionized
particles emitted from the corona) of 2,100, 90 and 22 years. The
astronomic theory says that how much radiation reaches the earth's surface
at any given latitude is determined by systematic changes in the earth's
position and attitude relative to the sun, with periodicities of 100,000,
43,000, 24,000 and 19,000 years. Data from various sources such as cores
from ice sheets and deep sea sediments, ancient beaches, tree lines, glacial
moraines, and pollen and insect counts support the radiation and astronomic
theories. The models which have been used to forecast global warming due to
man made emissions of carbon dioxide have ignored the astronomic theory
until very recently and still ignore the radiation theory. This is despite the
fact that the statistical fits of the astronomic and radiation theories are
extremely good and lead to accurate forecasts, whereas the models
backcast historical climate very poorly, forecast no better and are not
statistically verified.
The models assume that carbon dioxide leads and temperature follows. Data
from ice and deep sea cores show the reverse. They suggest that the role of
carbon dioxide is to amplify the effects of the astronomic variables and solar
radiation. There has never been a historical period where CO2 rose
independently of natural drivers, such as variations in solar radiance and
astronomical cycles, which could provide an analogy for the modern period. It
is impossible to sort out from history the independent role of CO2 as too
many other things were going on at the same time, such as changes in the
water and methane content of the atmosphere, the quantity of energy
emitted from the sun and changes in the earth's orbit. It now seems clear
from the evidence of the past 100 years, and spectral calculations, that the
model builders' estimates of CO2 sensitivity are about four times too high.
This means that any changes in temperature due to anthropogenic CO2 will be
at most 0.5 degrees C over the next 100 years, a figure well within the range
of the Little Optimum warming of 900 to 1300 AD, a period of flourishing
agricultural civilizations.
Regarding biospheric dynamics, radiation from the sun heats up the
equatorial region more than the poles, which sets up convection currents in
the atmosphere and the oceans between the cooler poles and the hot
equator. When radiation changes in intensity and/or the position of the earth
relative to earth alters, the pattern of these currents changes, and with
them the patterns of temperature over the earth's surface and of
precipitation. All of these things affect how much biomass grows and where,
which in turn affects how much carbon is sequestered in growing things and
in the deep ocean and how much in the atmosphere. All of these patterns
affect how much water is in the atmosphere, which, depending on the altitude
at which it is found, can either warm the earth or cool it. Correlation
between the astronomic variables and volcanic tracers in ice cores and the
methane content of the atmosphere, suggest that those variables may also
affect currents in the earth's molten core, which in turn affect volcanic
activity, including earthquakes. Vulcanism and methane content of the
atmosphere correlate with ice volume and thus with climate on the 100,000
year cycle.
These biospheric dynamics can be non-linear and can shift between states.
For example, the air and ocean current patterns are quite different as
between ice ages and interglacials. They represent two different states in
which the rules are different. The sudden shifts which occur between these
two states are known as phase changes. They can be triggered by very small
changes in variables. For example, relatively small changes in the salinity of
surface waters in the North Atlantic can so perturb the circulation pattern
that earth can switch from warming to cooling in less than a decade.
What we think we know about climate has been changing rapidly over the past
three decades and has led to extreme changes in forecasts of future
climate. When deep sea core data in the early 1970s led to acceptance of
the astronomic theory, coincident with temperature data which showed a
cooling after 1967, climatologists leapt into print, forecasting a coming ice
age. Twenty years later, when the first General Circulation Models were built
and the modern rise in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was
discovered, concern switched to global warming and climatologists,
(prominent among whom was one who had earlier raised the alarm about an
ice age) leapt into print once again. Today, prominent climatologists and
oceanographers are warning of a sudden cooling due to fresh water
interrupting the flow of the ocean current system known as the Atlantic
Conveyor. An astrophysicist is predicting another Little Ice Age by 2030
based on a solar model. What this tells us is that climatology is a new
science in which the knowledge base is changing rapidly and opinion is seldom
settled for long. What is very troubling is the propensity of climatologists to
extrapolate apocalyptic forecasts on the basis of each new piece of
significant data.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Can I just start off by noting that its amazing the peopel were arguing about whether the earth was warming for years, but now we're saying that we've been able to show that a handful of other planets are?
Originally posted by Nygdan
Who?
Who are you contending is covering up scientific evidence in order to protect the idea that earth's warming is because of increases in greenhouse gases?
Scientists?
Originally posted by Nygdan
This is a change in temperature as a result of atmospheric dynamics on jupiter. It has nothing to do with greenhouse gases on earth. It does not suggest an alternative solar system wide driver of the current terrestrial temperature increase.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Because distance from the sun is not the only factor that affects the amount of heat absorbed from the sun. This is why winter isn't defined by distance from the sun.
Originally posted by Nygdan
biocab.org...
Why are these guys being cited as authorities, and other researchers who are trained in climate related sciences and do research in it being ignored?
Originally posted by Nygdan
If they have a theory as to what is driving the current increase, then they should submit it to at least a moderately well respected research journal. If they have, and their paper was rejected because it was garbage, then I suppose that they'd have to put it up on a webpage.
Originally posted by Nygdan
There is both a warming trend and an increase in global atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
Originally posted by Nygdan
instead, we can see a clear relation between Solar Activity (green undashed line) and Global Warming
I don't see it in that graph.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
This is from a paper from 1978. There has been no more research on this possible cloud??
Originally posted by Nygdan
www.spaceref.com...
The stardust itself is very fine ? just one-hundredth of the width of a human hair. It is unlikely to have much effect on the planets
Originally posted by Nygdan
Based on a paper from 1978 and a couple of guys that explain biology to lay people??? I'm sorry, but the evidence presented does not support that the increase of greenhouse gas is not the cause of the increase in temperature.
Originally posted by Nygdan
You have not demostrated that there is a warming trend throughout the solar system either, nor that the warming on earth, mars, jupter, and pluto are caused by the same thing.
January 18, 2002: Every 11 years solar activity reaches a fever pitch: Solar flares erupt near sunspots on a daily basis. Coronal mass ejections, billion-ton clouds of magnetized gas, fly away from the Sun and buffet the planets. Even the Sun's awesome magnetic field -- as large as the solar system itself -- grows unstable and flips.
It's a turbulent time called Solar Max.
The most recent (and ongoing) Solar Max crested in mid-2000. Sunspot counts were higher than they had been in 10 years, and solar activity was intense. One remarkable eruption on July 14, 2000 -- the so-called "Bastille Day Event" -- sparked brilliant auroras as far south as Texas, caused electrical brown-outs, and temporarily disabled some satellites.
After that, sunspot counts slowly declined and the Sun was relatively quiet for month-long stretches. Solar Max was subsiding.
Resurgent Sun
Sun's Currents of Fire Slow to Record Low
By Tony Phillips
Science@NASA
posted: 10 May 2006
05:04 pm ET
The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."
The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.
Spacecom
The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues.
By David Stipp
February 9, 2004
(FORTUNE Magazine) – Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.
The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade--like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies--thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.
Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall's California wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia--it's easy to see why the Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change.
Climate researchers began getting seriously concerned about it a decade ago, after studying temperature indicators embedded in ancient layers of Arctic ice. The data show that a number of dramatic shifts in average temperature took place in the past with shocking speed--in some cases, just a few years.
The case for angst was buttressed by a theory regarded as the most likely explanation for the abrupt changes. The eastern U.S. and northern Europe, it seems, are warmed by a huge Atlantic Ocean current that flows north from the tropics--that's why Britain, at Labrador's latitude, is relatively temperate. Pumping out warm, moist air, this "great conveyor" current gets cooler and denser as it moves north. That causes the current to sink in the North Atlantic, where it heads south again in the ocean depths. The sinking process draws more water from the south, keeping the roughly circular current on the go.
But when the climate warms, according to the theory, fresh water from melting Arctic glaciers flows into the North Atlantic, lowering the current's salinity--and its density and tendency to sink. A warmer climate also increases rainfall and runoff into the current, further lowering its saltiness. As a result, the conveyor loses its main motive force and can rapidly collapse, turning off the huge heat pump and altering the climate over much of the Northern Hemisphere.
Scientists aren't sure what caused the warming that triggered such collapses in the remote past. (Clearly it wasn't humans and their factories.) But the data from Arctic ice and other sources suggest the atmospheric changes that preceded earlier collapses were dismayingly similar to today's global warming. As the Ice Age began drawing to a close about 13,000 years ago, for example, temperatures in Greenland rose to levels near those of recent decades. Then they abruptly plunged as the conveyor apparently shut down, ushering in the "Younger Dryas" period, a 1,300-year reversion to ice-age conditions. (A dryas is an Arctic flower that flourished in Europe at the time.)
Fortune Magazine
Originally posted by Nygdan
It is way too much of a coincidence, and even the sun is heating up more than it has in 1,000 years.
Please present the data that shows a correlation between solar output of the sun and increased earthly temperature.
Originally posted by Nygdan
And then, please explain why that correlation is supposed to be more beleiveable than the correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase.
Whats more reasonable, that the sun is going nuts, and all of the climatologists are keeping quite about it, or that increases of global concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing it???
Originally posted by Nygdan
but this shows that even if we stop every single car, every single factory and if every single human stopped using AC global warming will continue at the same pace it is going.
It shows no such thing.
Originally posted by Nygdan
they found that for example in the middle ages there was also global warming
Those guys made no such discovery. Its called the Medeival Warm Period, it was known about long before those guys came along.
Originally posted by Nygdan
The effects of warming, or the changes, will be felt more on planets with atmosphere, or astral bodies such as the Sun because their magnetic fields and atmospheres interact with the high energy region the solar system is going through as we speak.
Please first demonstrate that we are going through such a region.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.
Originally posted by Nygdan
There is no increase in the sun that explains the current warming trend.
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Please explain how. We have some other planets that have a short term warming trend being observed. Why are the scientists that note this trend correct, but the scientists that don't accept that this means there is a solar warming event count?
Originally posted by SeekTruth
We've been dugg.
digg.com...
Saturn has strange hot spot
W. M. KECK OBSERVATORY NEWS RELEASE
Posted: February 4, 2005
Astronomers using the Keck I telescope in Hawaii are learning much more about a strange, thermal "hot spot" on Saturn that is located at the tip of the planet's south pole. In what the team is calling the sharpest thermal views of Saturn ever taken from the ground, the new set of infrared images suggest a warm polar vortex at Saturn's south pole -- the first to ever be discovered in the solar system. This warm polar cap is home to a distinct compact hot spot, believed to contain the highest measured temperatures on Saturn. A paper announcing the results appears in the Feb. 4th issue of "Science."
A "polar vortex" is a persistent, large-scale weather pattern, likened to a jet stream on Earth that occurs in the upper atmosphere. On Earth, the Arctic Polar Vortex is typically located over eastern North America in Canada and plunges cold artic air to the Northern Plains in the United States. Earth's Antarctic Polar Vortex, centered over Antarctica, is responsible for trapping air and creating unusual chemistry, such as the effects that create the "ozone hole." Polar vortices are found on Earth, Jupiter, Mars and Venus, and are colder than their surroundings. But new images from the W. M. Keck Observatory show the first evidence of a polar vortex at much warmer temperatures. And the warmer, compact region at the pole itself is quite unusual.
"There is nothing like this compact warm cap in the Earth's atmosphere," said Dr. Glenn S. Orton, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena and lead author of the paper describing the results. "Meteorologists have detected sudden warming of the pole, but on Earth this effect is very short-term. This phenomenon on Saturn is longer-lived because we've been seeing hints of it in our data for at least two years."
The puzzle isn't that Saturn's south pole is warm; after all, it has been exposed to 15 years of continuous sunlight, having just reached its summer Solstice in late 2002. But both the distinct boundary of a warm polar vortex some 30 degrees latitude from the southern pole and a very hot "tip" right at the pole were completely unexpected.
"If the increased southern temperatures are solely the result of seasonality, then the temperature should increase gradually with increasing latitude, but it doesn't," added Dr. Orton. "We see that the temperature increases abruptly by several degrees near 70 degrees south and again at 87 degrees south."
The abrupt temperature changes may be caused by a concentration of sunlight-absorbing particulates in the upper atmosphere which trap in heat at the stratosphere. This theory explains why the hot spot appears dark in visible light and contains the highest measured temperatures on the planet. However, this alone does not explain why the particles themselves are constrained to the general southern part of Saturn and particularly to a compact area near the tip of Saturn's south pole. Forced downwelling of relatively dry air would explain this effect, which is consistent with other observations taken of the tropospheric clouds, but more observations are needed.
Hubble space telescope helps find evidence that Neptune's largest moon is warming up
RELEASE: 98-110
Observations obtained by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager spacecraft visited it in 1989.
"Since 1989, at least, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming -- percentage-wise, it's a very large increase," said James L. Elliot, an astronomer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA. The warming trend is causing part of Triton's frozen nitrogen surface to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser. Dr. Elliot and his colleagues from MIT, Lowell Observatory, and Williams College published their findings in the June 25 issue of the journal Nature.
Mars Ski Report: Snow is Hard, Dense and Disappearing
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:00 pm ET
06 December 2001
Mars would make a lousy host for the Winter Olympics. Yes, there's the lack of air to consider. But more important, Martian snow turns out to be rock hard. Worse, it is melting away at an alarming rate.
In fact, Mars may be in the midst of a period of profound climate change, according to a new study that shows dramatic year-to-year losses of snow at the south pole.
It is not yet clear, though, if the evidence of a single year's change represents a trend. But the study provides a surprising new view of the nature of the southern ice cap, said Michael Caplinger of Malin Space Science Systems.
One of the most profound benefits of being able to continue photographing Mars in the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Extended Mission is the opportunity to go back and re-image a site that was seen in the previous martian year. New MGS Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) images have provided a startling observation: The residual martian south polar cap is changing. The fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth's most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age.
It's gotta be the sun,
cause it sure can't be Industry. You gotta be kidding me. 