Past Climate Change

i just want to say one thing about the CO2 issue. too much of it is a bad thing. if a human breathes too much oxygen it doesn't make the human better. it causes toxicity. trees can't absorb excess CO2. more of it in the air doesn't HELP them.

edit due to accidental double post.

Originally posted by pasiphae
i just want to say one thing about the CO2 issue. too much of it is a bad thing. if a human breathes too much oxygen it doesn't make the human better. it causes toxicity. trees can't absorb excess CO2. more of it in the air doesn't HELP them.

First of all, the level at which CO2 is dangerous to humans is above 10,000 ppm. If you work in an office, you're exposed to > 5000 ppm every day. We can survive short exposure at 30,000 ppm. Ask OSHA if you don't believe me.

Second, trees most certainly can deal with CO2 levels well above what's normal now. They simply decrease the number of stoma to deal with the load. It has to be above 10,000 ppm before it even begins to affect the leaves, never mind the roots.

Oh, and higher CO2 levels mean that they need less water. So higher CO2 makes them more drought-resistant, which the polar opposite of what the alarmists claim.

I love how the alarmists have no clue what the level is before plants stop photosynthesizing, no matter how much water they have. I'll give you a hint. During the end of the last Ice Age, we were within 30 ppm of total ecological disaster.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Now I'm no scientist, but isn't oil from decomposing plants and animals? I know it takes millions of years, but if things are constantly dying and decomposing........we may not be able to reach it, but eventually someone will...right? I know this a simplistic question but I was just wondering.

All this happened in the last 15,000 years.
Nevada had the largest lake in the US Lake Lahontan
The sierras in Calif were covered with large glaciers.
There was a river flowing through the valley where i lived.(china lake) it and Nevada are now desert
There was a deep year around lake in Death Dalley calif
waynesword.palomar.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...

Climate Change has always happened .
Climate Change will always happen till the earth is turned into a cinder by the sun.

The morons that are pushing that man changed the Climate know this but are using natural climate change for there own purposes by calling it man made.

So far there is no proof ether way as to if its natural Climate Change or man made Climate Change.

Climate Change has always happened . Climate Change will always happen till the earth is turned into a cinder by the sun.

reply to post by ANNED

You've hit the nail on the head. THAT is the bottom line.

sure the climate changes. there are even many natural ways mother earth absorbs green house gasses. there is a simple problem tho

the bathtub effect

there is no logical way you can say humans are not flooding the bathtub faster than it can drain. none. human output of greenhouse gasses (including methane) is simply unprecedented. at no time in earths history has an organism drilled deeply into her core to retrieve long lost substances, brought them to the surface, and burned them and released them into the atmosphere

at no time

there is no logical way you can say humans are not flooding the bathtub faster than it can drain. none. human output of greenhouse gasses (including methane) is simply unprecedented. at no time in earths history has an organism drilled deeply into her core to retrieve long lost substances, brought them to the surface, and burned them and released them into the atmosphere at no time

reply to post by syrinx high priest



Well, humans weren't around millions of years ago to do that. HOWEVER, let's talk facts, not a meaningless statement such as the one above, which is irrelevant:

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

geocraft.com...

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


of course there are other factors, methane being a huge one. I intentionally avoided using the term carbon in favor of green house gasses for a reason

and I have to say any quoted source that has the phrase "much to their consternation" is clearly biased and it's credibility is called into question

the fun part is the sun is in a weak cycle now

when it heats up, we won't be debating this anymore we will be floating !

what did you make of professor Muller's testimony to congress ?

I begin by talking about
Global Warming
Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C
land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we
call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to
build on it.
Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According to the most recent
IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it
amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then. Let’s assume the human-caused
warming is 0.6 degrees.
The magnitude of this temperature rise is a key scientific and public policy concern. A
0.2 degree uncertainty puts the human component between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees – a factor
of two uncertainty. Policy depends on this number. It needs to be improved.
Berkeley Earth is working to improve on the accuracy of this key number by using a
more complete set of data, and by looking at biases in a new way.
The project has already merged 1.6 billion land surface temperature measurements from
16 sources, most of them publicly available, and is putting them in a simple format to
allow easy use by scientists around the world. By using all the data and new statistical
approaches that can handle short records, and by using novel approaches to estimation
and avoidance of systematic biases, we expect to improve on the accuracy of the estimate
of the Earth’s temperature change.t

the best part is professor muller was hired by the republicans to shoot down AGW. he did the work, looked at the numbers.....and not only concluded the planet is getting warmer, but humans play a role.

oh, and before you attack tha data, read the report

berkely project

and I have to say any quoted source that has the phrase "much to their consternation" is clearly biased and it's credibility is called into question the fun part is the sun is in a weak cycle now when it heats up, we won't be debating this anymore we will be floating !

reply to post by syrinx high priest

Actually, regardless of the parenthetical phrase you cited, the FACTS quoted in my reference are verified in countless text books.
You actually don't understand the science behind any of this, and in fact, you probably shouldn't be even debating this, because your comment shows you lack a basic understanding of this topic.
You speak of the sun "being in a weak cycle" now, as if there is only one cycle of the sun. I suggest your learn about the many different cycles of the sun, other than the popularized 11 year cycle. Then come back and discuss this topic intelligently, instead of making ludicrous statements, such as "we will be floating".

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

and I have to say any quoted source that has the phrase "much to their consternation" is clearly biased and it's credibility is called into question the fun part is the sun is in a weak cycle now when it heats up, we won't be debating this anymore we will be floating !

reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Actually, regardless of the parenthetical phrase you cited, the FACTS quoted in my reference are verified in countless text books.
You actually don't understand the science behind any of this, and in fact, you probably shouldn't be even debating this, because your comment shows you lack a basic understanding of this topic.
You speak of the sun "being in a weak cycle" now, as if there is only one cycle of the sun. I suggest your learn about the many different cycles of the sun, other than the popularized 11 year cycle. Then come back and discuss this topic intelligently, instead of making ludicrous statements, such as "we will be floating".

since I'm a dummy, kindly respond to professor muller

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Since these major changes occurred without mankind, one can conclude that mankind is a minor contributor to climate changes.

I agree that we are not the only factor but we are excluded to be accepted as a natural occurring event. When you think on all the oil we burn, the coal and wood, how we help deforestation and desertification, that today there are very few places that man has not have a hand in reshaping, I cannot accept that such huge and vast impact is declared as minor. One just needs to think about atomic energy to see how much impact we have had, remember DDT and other chemicals that we introduced to the earth ecosystem.

The impact we managed to have in the last 200 years has been huge and has been increasing in a exponential basis...

I'm not an alarmist because I'm not attempting to frighten anyone or even in convincing someone about what the facts are, they have eyes like I do, todays populations that live in urban centers, it suffices to look around and breathe the air. I'm not strictly stating the human CO2 emissions alone are a major issue but they are a large part of the negative impact we have on the environment and climate, for example the tree gorge damn in China would also constitute a large alteration to weather patterns.

from Indian industry pollution blankets Terai in fog
The dense fog over the Nepal Terai in the second and third weeks of December 2011 took a total of 40 lives because of the resultant cold wave it caused.

China now produces 6,832 m tons of CO2, a 754% increase since 1971 (from Global Pollution: Biggest Offenders) this sort of increases will be happening in the rest of underdeveloped Asia, Africa and South America.

I suspect nothing major will happen, other than normal fluctuations from year to year.

It is already happening since the first major El Nino in 1980s and the 1990–1994 unusual rapid succession of El Niños have rarely occurred since with major impact on human society. We may not be the only cause but we are certainly in for a predictable ride...

reply to post by timetothink


I agree that most of the proposed solutions are just insufficient and even exploitative of the situation, like for instance the the carbon trade plan and most of the silly carbon capture initiatives.

I do not believe that the earth can fix it alone see the problem of expecting that in the post above by syrinx high priest.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

there is no logical way you can say humans are not flooding the bathtub faster than it can drain. none. human output of greenhouse gasses (including methane) is simply unprecedented. at no time in earths history has an organism drilled deeply into her core to retrieve long lost substances, brought them to the surface, and burned them and released them into the atmosphere at no time

reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Well, humans weren't around millions of years ago to do that. HOWEVER, let's talk facts, not a meaningless statement such as the one above, which is irrelevant:

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

geocraft.com...

edit on 7-1-2012 by ProfEmeritus because: typo

What they tried to do was extrapolate the so-called greenhouse effect from Venus to Earth. They can quote Arrhenius all they want, but the simple fact is that he never took the oceans into account. They're the biggest carbon sink on the planet. NASA's James Hansen, one of the biggest alarmists out there and the guy who wants skeptics to be put in prison, did his dissertation on the Venus greenhouse effect. But Earth has several things Venus doesn't have:

1) Oceans
2) An active biomass (ie, plants and animals)
3) A magnetic field
4) Tectonic plates

All of which are part of the carbon cycle.

By their reasoning, Mars should be just as hot; its atmosphere is >95% CO2 as well. But it's not, it's a frozen desert.

If rising temps correlate to higher CO2, it's because the oceans warm first, releasing their dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere. This is backed up by the ice core record.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

Since these major changes occurred without mankind, one can conclude that mankind is a minor contributor to climate changes.

I agree that we are not the only factor but we are excluded to be accepted as a natural occurring event. When you think on all the oil we burn, the coal and wood, how we help deforestation and desertification, that today there are very few places that man has not have a hand in reshaping, I cannot accept that such huge and vast impact is declared as minor. One just needs to think about atomic energy to see how much impact we have had, remember DDT and other chemicals that we introduced to the earth ecosystem.

The impact we managed to have in the last 200 years has been huge and has been increasing in a exponential basis...

I'm not an alarmist because I'm not attempting to frighten anyone or even in convincing someone about what the facts are, they have eyes like I do, todays populations that live in urban centers, it suffices to look around and breathe the air. I'm not strictly stating the human CO2 emissions alone are a major issue but they are a large part of the negative impact we have on the environment and climate, for example the tree gorge damn in China would also constitute a large alteration to weather patterns.

from Indian industry pollution blankets Terai in fog
The dense fog over the Nepal Terai in the second and third weeks of December 2011 took a total of 40 lives because of the resultant cold wave it caused.

China now produces 6,832 m tons of CO2, a 754% increase since 1971 (from Global Pollution: Biggest Offenders) this sort of increases will be happening in the rest of underdeveloped Asia, Africa and South America.

I suspect nothing major will happen, other than normal fluctuations from year to year.

It is already happening since the first major El Nino in 1980s and the 1990–1994 unusual rapid succession of El Niños have rarely occurred since with major impact on human society. We may not be the only cause but we are certainly in for a predictable ride...

And where does that energy come from?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

of course there are other factors, methane being a huge one. I intentionally avoided using the term carbon in favor of green house gasses for a reason

Where do you think methane comes from? It can come from non-biological sources, but the main source is plants and animals.

and I have to say any quoted source that has the phrase "much to their consternation" is clearly biased and it's credibility is called into question

the fun part is the sun is in a weak cycle now

Yes, and even NASA is predicting a Maunder-type minimum over the next 30-40 years. It takes awhile to cool a few quadrillion gallons of water.

when it heats up, we won't be debating this anymore we will be floating !

what did you make of professor Muller's testimony to congress ?

Muller was never a skeptic, and what BEST showed is a zero trend in global warming for the last 15 years. His own co-author disagrees with him.

I begin by talking about
Global Warming
Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C
land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we
call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to
build on it.

No, that 1C rise is called urban heat island effect. What you need to look at is the SST's.

Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According to the most recent
IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it
amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then. Let’s assume the human-caused
warming is 0.6 degrees.
The magnitude of this temperature rise is a key scientific and public policy concern. A
0.2 degree uncertainty puts the human component between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees – a factor
of two uncertainty. Policy depends on this number. It needs to be improved.
Berkeley Earth is working to improve on the accuracy of this key number by using a
more complete set of data, and by looking at biases in a new way.
The project has already merged 1.6 billion land surface temperature measurements from
16 sources, most of them publicly available, and is putting them in a simple format to
allow easy use by scientists around the world. By using all the data and new statistical
approaches that can handle short records, and by using novel approaches to estimation
and avoidance of systematic biases, we expect to improve on the accuracy of the estimate
of the Earth’s temperature change.t

New statistical approaches means "make it up as you go along."

reply to post by HappyBunny


The sun and man, think on all the heat that we generate daily not only by our change on reflective and absorbing natural surfaces, and natural accumulators like water but on how we spend energy what the energy that is lost in a combustion engine "Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%". Considering that most of all generators of energy are internal combustion engines from coal plants to diesel engines, that 80% is lost as heat (and at a very low level vibration), but all human activities use and generate heat, as car travels, as we use light from candle to bulb, as we prepare our food or heat our homes, the numbers should be astronomical on the impact we have in adding energy to the environment at all the range of the spectrum (radio, microwaves, lazer, infrared).

professor muller never gets any discussion from the skeptics. I guess it's because he was one, hired to dispute global warming, but after getting rid of bias in the data and lower quality readings and crunching billions of temperature readings, he came to the inescapable conclusion, the planet is getting warmer, and humans play a role

oh, and he's a fancy prfessor, not an ignorant dummy like me

I don't think humans are the most significant contributor to global warming, but it is the only contribution we can do something about, and we really should !!!

there are only 3 choices in this discussion. humans pumping an UNNATURAL source of CO2, methane and literally thousands of other pollutants into the atmosphere is;

A) benefical to the atmosphere
B) damaging to the atmosphere
C) has literally a 0.00000% impact on the environment

so what do you choose professor ? do you really think it is either beneficial or has a literal 0.00000% change ?

I eagerly await your response

reply to post by HappyBunny


bathtub theory

"humans add methane into the environment that normally, under natural processes, otherwise would not have been added."

tru or false ?

of course there are natural sources for methane, and natural sources for it to be absorbed by earth

but humans are tipping the scales, and altering the natural balance of things

there is no debating that simple fact

bathtub theory

since I'm a dummy, kindly respond to professor muller

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Sure, I'll address you statement. First of all, Muller's degree is in Physics. Second, he is a teacher at UC Berkley, and is so far to the left politically, that he makes Obama look like a conservative. Finally, I will respond by giving you the name of a respected Professor, who unlike, your Herr Muller, IS in the field of meteorology:
-Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I suggest you visit the following link, and read it in entirety. It explains why ONLY pro-AGW advocates are given any credence in Congressional inquiries, and why Professors who even just QUESTION AGW are fired, and/or had their research funds removed. It is obvious that the AGW bigots don't even want research by respected professors, UNLESS they assure Congress and the AGW groups that their "research" will support AGW.


www.cato.org...

As a retired professor, respected, honest, truth-seeking professors will NEVER perform research with a predetermined outcome.

Finally, I never called you a dummy. Here is what I said:

You actually don't understand the science behind any of this, and in fact, you probably shouldn't be even debating this, because your comment shows you lack a basic understanding of this topic. You speak of the sun "being in a weak cycle" now, as if there is only one cycle of the sun. I suggest your learn about the many different cycles of the sun, other than the popularized 11 year cycle. Then come back and discuss this topic intelligently, instead of making ludicrous statements, such as "we will be floating".

Since you haven't cited any credentials that you have on this topic, and it is obvious from your statements that you do not understand the complexity of this issue, I stand by what I DID SAY.