NASA: Only 10 Years Till Irreversable Climatic Danger Point

Originally posted by melatonin

So you present a single regional proxy again, heh.

Single regional proxy?... First of all they used 180 records to reach that particular conclusion, second of all I have given dozens of other research from other scientists around the world, and their research shows these climatic events were global, but you keep dismissing these research, because for one reason or another you want to continue believing in Mann et al...

Sure, they were not global events...these events just appears in the geological record of every continent in this world... You know these events are recorded in the geological record of North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Japan, China, the Sargasso sea, The south China Sea, etc, etc.

I already gave several links which corroborate my claims, but will give some more.

Watch how melatonin will try to dismiss the following in one way or another by either claiming "those are not peer-reviewed" even though they are, or " those are just regional models and Mann et al are the ones that are right" despite the fact that there is proof these past Climate Events were global......

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China

Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Baishiqiaolu No. 46, 100081 Beijing, China

Abstract The collected documentary records of the cultivation of citrus trees and Boehmeria nivea (a perennial herb) have been used to produce distribution maps of these plants for the eighth, twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. The northern boundary of citrus and Boehmeria nivea cultivation in the thirteenth century lay to the north of the modern distribution. During the last 1000 years, the thirteenth-century boundary was the northernmost. This indicates that this was the warmest time in that period. On the basis of knowledge of the climatic conditions required for planting these species, it can be estimated that the annual mean temperature in south Henan Province in the thirteenth century was 0.9–1.0°C higher than at present. A new set of data for the latest snowfall date in Hangzhou from A.D. 1131 to 1264 indicates that this cannot be considered a cold period, as previously believed.

www.springerlink.com...

And of course there is also the following, appart from the other dozen research i have excerpted here and in other threads. But "malatonin" Mann et al, want people to believe this is not true...

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the
past 1000 years
Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS 16, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, California 91023, USA

ABSTRACT: The 1000 yr climatic and environmental history of the Earth contained in various proxy records is reviewed. As indicators, the proxies duly represent local climate. Because each is of a different nature, the results from the proxy indicators cannot be combined into a hemispheric or
global quantitative composite. However, considered as an ensemble of individual expert opinions, the assemblage of local representations of climate establishes both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints, extending earlier results by Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965), and numerous intervening research efforts. Furthermore, the individual proxies can be used to address the question of whether the 20th century is the warmest of the 2nd
millennium locally. Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.

w3g.gkss.de...

melatonin has often times shown a disdain for real scientific inquiry, he just wants to accept whatever Mann et al claim, even though it has been shown Mann et al are wrong, and their data and graphs are flawed, and even outright lies as for examples their attempts to bury the RWM, the MWP and the LIA.

Here is a study done by Hu et al 2001 in Alaska which shows that the RWP, the MWP, and the LIA also occurred in Alaska.

Geology
Pronounced climatic variations in Alaska during the last two millennia
Feng Sheng Hu*,, Emi Ito, Thomas A. Brown§, B. Brandon Curry¶, and Daniel R. Engstrom
................
Paired oxygen-isotopic analyses of abiotic carbonate and benthic-ostracode shells from lake sediments provide a continuous quantitative record of growing-season temperature for the past 2000 years in the northwestern foothills of the Alaska Range. This record reveals three time intervals of comparable warmth: anno Domini (A.D.) 0-300 [Roman Warming Period], 850-1200 [Medieval Warming Period], and post-1800 (Current Warming period], the latter two of which correspond to the Medieval Climatic Anomaly and climatic amelioration after the end of the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age culminated at A.D. 1700, when the climate was 1.7°C colder than at present. A marked climatic cooling also occurred around A.D. 600, coinciding with extensive glacial advances in Alaska. Comparisons of this temperature record with ostracode trace-element ratios (Mg/Ca, Sr/Ca) further suggest that colder periods were wetter and vice versa during the past 2000 years.

www.pnas.org...

Originally posted by melatonin
7GtC released by humans into the atmosphere every year, about half of which accumulates and accounts for the yearly atmospheric rise. Sinks show no net natural loss of carbon.

We know where the carbon is coming from.

Yes, mankind has been releasing a lot of anthropogenic CO2, but let's actually see what "real scientists have to say about the amount of anthropogenic CO2 that has been released by mankind, instead of believing melatonin exagerations and lies.

December 6, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02:55:00 pm, Categories: Earth Science, Environment, Global Warming and Climate Change, Physics, Politics and Science, Skepticism, Public Policy, 368 words

Is Anthropogenic Climate Change a Myth?
In a paper sure to catch the eye of the interested, L.F. Khilyuk and George V. Chilingar of the University of Southern California set out to prove that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. To cut to the chase:
..........
...total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission throughout the human history is estimated at about 2.81x1011 metric tons of carbon. Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003x1018 g, which constitutes less than 0.00022 percent of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth's climate.

Link

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, just 2-4.5'C globally.

Not really, that's what you, Mann et al want people to believe but research shows a very different result.

For example, the experiments done to recreate climate in the mid U.S. shows that a doubling of CO2 from present levels would only increase temperatures by 0.015C... Phew the mention of that number surely makes one sweat huh?.....

(actually the increase in temperatures would be 0.014C)

The contribution to maximum temperature is small for
2 X CO2 radiation, with a mean of 0.014 °C, while the
2 X CO2 biology indicates a relatively large cooling
contribution of 0.747 °C.]/ex]
blue.atmos.colostate.edu...

It is true that there would be differences in other parts of the world, but a doubling of CO2 will not increase temperatures at the levels which you, Mann et al claim...

There are many other natural factors which you "do keep dismissing", which control Global Climate, and which as a matter of fact have been increasing in their output, such as the Sun's irradiance, and the amount of Solar Flares which have also increased during the lasr 60 years, and the fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1845, and all of which are the real causes for the present Climate Change/Global Warming, just as these natural factors have done so many times in the past...

Originally posted by melatonin
Can't quite see where I said that. But the current release of CO2 is predominately human-sourced.

You claimed in that last statement of yours that "all the natural CO2 released is taken back by those same natural factors" which in part is true, but you forget to mention that those natural factors have increased in the past the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to levels much higher than mankind can ever emit...

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Karl7772000
Even if it is just a planetary cycle, isn't cutting back on pollution a good idea anyways?

Although officially retired from this thread, I just have to say thanks for mentioning something that we can all agree with. Yes, conservation, environmental remediation of affected sites, improved energy efficiency and new sources of clean energy is on every scientist's wish list, regardless of their view on A.G.W. We can, and should be better stewards of this planet's ecosystem.



[edit on 6/3/2007 by TheAvenger]

On this then we can both agree. Except that I believe that it needs to become a political and economic urgency... global warming or not we are burning the candle at both ends and we need to grow up as a species in regards to our stewardship of this planet or our future here will become increasingly more bleak.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Single regional proxy?... First of all they used 180 records to reach that particular conclusion, second of all

I really don't want to laugh here, but you might just once want to check your sources.

180 records, heheh.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Watch how melatonin will try to dismiss the following in one way or another by either claiming "those are not peer-reviewed" even though they are, or " those are just regional models and Mann et al are the ones that are right" despite the fact that there is proof these past Climate Events were global......

No, not regional models, but single proxies from a single region that covers a period of several hundred years. If we want to see how climate changed over time and regions with high resolution, we need good multiple temperature proxies. We have over a dozen studies that assess this issue, and not one supports the idea that the MWP was warmer than currently. From the recent IPCC report:



When we use these proxies, we find that current warming is of greater spatial extent, greater synchronicity, and to a higher level than for at least 1000 years.

This does not mean that some areas were not warmer at some point in time in the past than now.

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the
past 1000 years
Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS 16, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, California 91023, USA

We've talked about the Soon & Baliunas study before, this is one of the worst examples of climate scholarship around. It led to numerous people on the review board of the journal to resign.

The Briffa & Osborn (2006) study did what they tried to do, but properly.

...total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission throughout the human history is estimated at about 2.81x1011 metric tons of carbon. Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003x1018 g, which constitutes less than 0.00022 percent of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth's climate.

Link

This is another joke piece of research, I went through this one with ScienceAvenger. I'll ask you the same question I asked him.

Do you think comparing the amount of CO2 released by humans in less than 200 years to the amount of CO2 released during the whole of geological history (all 4.6 billion years) is a suitable way to assess the impact of human activity?

Not really, that's what you, Mann et al want people to believe but research shows a very different result.

For example, the experiments done to recreate climate in the mid U.S. shows that a doubling of CO2 from present levels would only increase temperatures by 0.015C... Phew the mention of that number surely makes one sweat huh?.....

Hurrah, I'm quite chuffed, you've actually started to show some intellectual honesty with Pielke's study.

Well done.

Maybe if the whole earth was a central US grassland we could just ignore a doubling of CO2. However, global estimates of climate sensitivity are 2-4.5'C. That's just a little bit higher.

As I keep telling you, Mann doesn't work in this area, his area of expertise is paleoclimatology, others research climate sensitivity.

You claimed in that last statement of yours that "all the natural CO2 released is taken back by those same natural factors" which in part is true, but you forget to mention that those natural factors have increased in the past the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to levels much higher than mankind can ever emit...

If I was trying to explain the history of CO2 activity over geological time, maybe I would want to mention this, but we were discussing the attribution of current increases in CO2.

As I said originally, it is predominately human-sourced.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]

Im glad to hear that i could bring some middle ground agreements to the debate

Originally posted by melatonin

I really don't want to laugh here, but you might just once want to check your sources.

180 records, heheh.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

No problem there. I have been laughing everytime you make absurb claims such as "those events were not global" even though i have posted several research which shows the contrary to your claim...or that you claim "the Holocene warming stopped long ago, and any current warming due to holocene is not true according to you"...even though any scientist know we are currently still undergoing Holocene warming, and as i have posted research shows the current warming in the Arctic is being cause by Holocene sea level rise/warming...and not by mankind...

Originally posted by melatonin
No, not regional models, but single proxies from a single region that covers a period of several hundred years.

Oh right...it doesn't matter that research in China, Japan, Europe, North America, South America, etc, etc, all show those past climate events happened around the same time all over the globe... they are still not "global events" according to melatonin, Mann et al"....

Originally posted by melatonin
We've talked about the Soon & Baliunas study before, this is one of the worst examples of climate scholarship around. It led to numerous people on the review board of the journal to resign.

And we have talked about the "IPCC report" and quite a few scientists who were lead authors have stated that the IPCC report is nothing more than political propaganda and some of those scientists even requested for their names to be taken out due to the claims in the IPCC which the policymakers decided to put in those reports... This has been happening in every report given out by the IPCC since the 90s...

Originally posted by melatonin
This is another joke piece of research, I went through this one with ScienceAvenger. I'll ask you the same question I asked him.

Do you think comparing the amount of CO2 released by humans in less than 200 years to the amount of CO2 released during the whole of geological history (all 4.6 billion years) is a suitable way to assess the impact of human activity?

I will anwser with another question... Don't you think that if anthropogenic CO2 was the cause for the current warming, and knowing that warming has been happening also in the central U.S., shouldn't experiments done which reproduce conditions in "the central U.S." show a higher increase in temperatures when the experiments were done with even a doubling of CO2? . the experiments included the increase in CO2 which we have experienced in the late 20th century, but neither the current increase of CO2 nor a doubling of CO2 show any relevant increase in temperature.

Originally posted by melatonin

Maybe if the whole earth was a central US grassland we could just ignore a doubling of CO2. However, global estimates of climate sensitivity are 2-4.5'C. That's just a little bit higher.

And maybe if CO2 increases temperatures as you claim, the experiments done in the recreation of the mid U.S. which included doubling CO2, should show the large temperature increases which you claim would occur, yet it doesn't.

Originally posted by melatonin
As I keep telling you, Mann doesn't work in this area, his area of expertise is paleoclimatology, others research climate sensitivity.

Yet you keep showing Mann';s graphs and data as if he was the "know it all in Climate Change".

Originally posted by melatonin
If I was trying to explain the history of CO2 activity over geological time, maybe I would want to mention this, but we were discussing the attribution of current increases in CO2.

Another excuse by malatonin who keeps being dishonest, and at the end just keeps trying to spread disinformation.

Natural factors in the past have increased CO2 levels to much higher leves than it exist today, but you would have people believe that only mankind can do so..

Originally posted by melatonin
As I said originally, it is predominately human-sourced.

You might claim so, but the research does not corroborate your claims.

Lets just ignore a pretty schoolboy error, we'll just pretend it never happened...

Originally posted by Muaddib
No problem there. I have been laughing everytime you make absurb claims such as "those events were not global" even though i have posted several research which shows the contrary to your claim

I never said they weren't of global significance. I just don't accept they were of the scale in numerous ways to current warming.

...or that you claim "the Holocene warming stopped long ago, and any current warming due to holocene is not true according to you"...even though any scientist know we are currently still undergoing Holocene warming, and as i have posted research shows the current warming in the Arctic is being cause by Holocene sea level rise/warming...and not by mankind

If you are talking about the Pingo study, that's just another example of your poor interpretion of research.

The evidence does not support the idea that the current trend in warming is due to rising sea-levels 10,000 years ago. If it was due to that, we would see a consistent increasing trend in temperatures, we don't, we see general cooling since a high after the end of the last glacial period.

Oh right...it doesn't matter that research in China, Japan, Europe, North America, South America, etc, etc, all show those past climate events happened around the same time all over the globe... they are still not "global events" according to melatonin, Mann et al"....

Jeez Louise. These proxies suggest it was warm in these particular areas at some point in a 500 year period. That is all.

When we use high resolution temperature proxies, we see that although some areas were warm, some possibly warmer than currently, during this 500 year period, it was not as spatially significant or as synchronous as current warming.

I will anwser with another question... Don't you think that if anthropogenic CO2 was the cause for the current warming, and knowing that warming has been happening also in the central U.S., shouldn't experiments done which reproduce conditions in "the central U.S." show a higher increase in temperatures when the experiments were done with even a doubling of CO2? . the experiments included the increase in CO2 which we have experienced in the late 20th century, but neither the current increase of CO2 nor a doubling of CO2 show any relevant increase in temperature.

And maybe if CO2 increases temperatures as you claim, the experiments done in the recreation of the mid U.S. which included doubling CO2, should show the large temperature increases which you claim would occur, yet it doesn't.

Not really, it depends on the area in question. Pielke has used his model which shows that in this particular area climate sensitivity may be less than is shown on average for the globe.

Another excuse by malatonin who keeps being dishonest, and at the end just keeps trying to spread disinformation.

Natural factors in the past have increased CO2 levels to much higher leves than it exist today, but you would have people believe that only mankind can do so..

When did I suggest that?

You might claim so, but the research does not corroborate your claims.

You haven't presented any to question this. we produce more CO2 than is accumulating every year, the maths is rather simple for most.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Lets just ignore a pretty schoolboy error, we'll just pretend it never happened...

...ok regenmacher...whatever you want to claim...

Originally posted by melatonin
I never said they weren't of global significance. I just don't accept they were of the scale in numerous ways to current warming.

that's just too funny knowing that you have stated many times that "these were not global events".... and btw, much of the research work I have shown does corroborate my statements that "those past climatic events were much warmer than the present....but of course "melatonin, Mann et al, all who have been shown to be wrong in their assesments want to claim the contrary"..

Originally posted by melatonin
If you are talking about the Pingo study, that's just another example of your poor interpretion of research.

The evidence does not support the idea that the current trend in warming is due to rising sea-levels 10,000 years ago. If it was due to that, we would see a consistent increasing trend in temperatures, we don't, we see general cooling since a high after the end of the last glacial period.

Except for the fact that during every major climatic events temperatures never remain constant, they fluctuate...

As for the statement on the holocene warming, i have shown quite a few research work which also corroborate my statements that oceans and lakes are warming more than the atmosphere has been warming.

Originally posted by melatonin
Jeez Louise. These proxies suggest it was warm in these particular areas at some point in a 500 year period. That is all.

Holy # Batman... All those studies show that the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warming, and the Little Ice Age, "all" occurred relatively during the same time....but melatonin like always tries to claim the contrary...

Originally posted by melatonin
Not really, it depends on the area in question. Pielke has used his model which shows that in this particular area climate sensitivity may be less than is shown on average for the globe.

If CO2 was such a heat trapping GHG, producing large amounts of warming, any and all experiments done by increasing the amount of CO2 should show such warming yet it doesn't.

In fact as i have shown in other threads i can clearly and easily corroborate the fact that "water vapor" is a worse GHG than CO2.

Why is it that "cloudy nights" during summer are a lot hotter than clear nights when CO2 levels have remained constant?

Originally posted by melatonin
When did I suggest that?

wow, some people surely have the memory of an elephant... just go back a few posts and you will see your own statement about "the natural factors all act as sinks and trap all the CO2 they emit"...Nor in those exact same words but similar...

You are being disengenuous now...well, like always..

Originally posted by melatonin
You haven't presented any to question this. we produce more CO2 than is accumulating every year, the maths is rather simple for most.

i have presented plenty, you just don't want to accept any research which refutes your claims.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Whether we are going thru a natural warming event, or whether the bulk of the warming we are currently experiencing is man caused, there's one thing to look at...

Its fairly obvious we are exacerbating what is going on here thru our consumption of resources, energy use and so on..

If indeed we are going thru a natural warming period, doesn't it make a helluva lot of sense not to make it much worse than it would otherwise be by cutting our emissions and make better use of natural resources ?

At this point in our development, we actually have the means to lessen the effects of this warming, man-made or not...Unlike our forebears who had to deal with whatever warming took place...

Arguments about the how, why, where and who are pointless

Time to act folks, clock is ticking...

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by melatonin
Lets just ignore a pretty schoolboy error, we'll just pretend it never happened...

...ok regenmacher...whatever you want to claim...

Lets do this bit by bit...

Single regional proxy?... First of all they used 180 records to reach that particular conclusion

Did they use one hundred and eighty records from the ice-cap study like you claim above? Or was it a single region proxy like I said?

[edit on 4-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by melatonin
Lets just ignore a pretty schoolboy error, we'll just pretend it never happened...

...ok regenmacher...whatever you want to claim...

Lets do this bit by bit...

Single regional proxy?... First of all they used 180 records to reach that particular conclusion

Did they use one hundred and eighty records from the ice-cap study like you claim above? Or was it a single region proxy like I said?

[edit on 4-6-2007 by melatonin]

As I've already said, arguing how or what caused the recent warming of the planet is not worth debating...The important thing is we act on it, and reduce its effects on humanity as best we can...

Those who engage in ideological arguments over this subject are missing the big picture here...


EDIT - for stoopid typing....

[edit on 4-6-2007 by Rilence]

I gotta agree with rilence on that last one, as i said earlier, decreasing pollution is good regardless. ( And now that my posts are up to 20 i will try to put more meaningful posts, i just needed the ability for U2U so i could continue extraneous conversations outside of threads. )

Originally posted by Rilence
Time to act folks, clock is ticking...

preserving the environment and reducing CO2 emissions are not the same at all by any stretch of the imagination. just one word: biofuel.

i outlined my problems with the current focus on carbon dioxide in another thread, www.abovetopsecret.com...

but before you read that post, i'm asking you what happened to the idea of rainforest preservation, why did people so quickly forget about acid rain? today, some scientists propose dumping SO2 in the upper atmosphere, it's only a matter of time until it combines with water to form sulfuric acid.

see www.abovetopsecret.com...

how come that everything is allowed in the 'war' on climate? these measures are NOT designed to boost efficiency, in fact biofuel is not very efficient if you take fertilizer use into account

www.fromthewilderness.com...

burning food crops is much more problematic if you consider mineral content, soil depletion is very real:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

so, in other words, give better reasons than a lack of time. if we continue arguing on an emotional level, all the time in the world won't help us any.

Originally posted by Rilence
...........
Its fairly obvious we are exacerbating what is going on here thru our consumption of resources, energy use and so on..

Soooo...why are you using a computer?...

Stop using that computer, stop updating your computer, stop buying the newest pc games, or new games for Xbox 360, or any of the other game systems out there, stop buying books, you know they still use trees to make pages, not to mention the ink they have to make and the plastic they use in the book covers... Stop watching tv, you are using too much electricity which half of it is produced by coal, stop going to the grocery to buy your food because you are paying for the trucks which use that evil oil product fuel to distribute the food you and billions others are eating... Stop using your fridge, and your microwave, those microwaves are cooking your brain and the Earth...

So, lets go back to the caves, start using a loincloth, or even leaves from trees to cover yourself, oh wait, you will be killing something that is alive...humm...use your hands to cover yourself, and then wait and hope with the other billions of people in caves for things to get better...even though none of the above will stop nor mitigate Climate Change...

Oh but let's do it anyways heh?

Screw that i want my imported German beers

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

BEEEEER!!!!! Yeeeesss, let's go get some beer. We can celebrate the imaginary end of the world by the hands of the evil anthropogenic CO2.

(Sarcasm off) Nomatter what we do, Climate Change will continue to happen. All we can do is prepare, and plan to live with the changes that will continue happening, nomatter how much some people desire for these changes not to occur.

Originally posted by melatonin

Did they use one hundred and eighty records from the ice-cap study like you claim above? Or was it a single region proxy like I said?

....... Several times i have given that link and given the excerpts...it clearly says they used 180 ice core records...

Everyone of the links i have given, data from all over the world refutes your claims melatonin. But apparently you wish the research did not exist...

It is obvious you have developed some sort of "blind denial syndrome"... Anything you don't want to see/read, even if it is written and presented to you in bold caps, and with excerpts it dissapears to you and it never existed to you...

Originally posted by Muaddib
....... Several times i have given that link and given the excerpts...it clearly says they used 180 ice core records...

You might want to read it a bit closer...

academic.emporia.edu...

It is obvious you have developed some sort of "blind denial syndrome"... Anything you don't want to see/read, even if it is written and presented to you in bold caps, and with excerpts it dissapears to you and it never existed to you...

In the context of your last post, that's pretty darn funny

[edit on 4-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
..............
In the context of your last post, that's pretty darn funny

Not when you take in consideration that you have been claiming the RWP and the MWP were not warmer than present even after i showed research from Africa, China, Japan, Europe, North America, South America among others, all which show those periods were warmer than at present....

Yeah, darn funny indeed...

[edit on 4-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Anyways, i am going out in the 54 degree F weather outside in Wyoming, which will go down to the high 40s later on even though we are being told anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for all the present warming, and do some chores that I need to do...

[edit on 4-6-2007 by Muaddib]