Global Warming Slowdown Is Not Good News

reply to post by Krakatoa


You are basically correct.

There's little doubt that everything we humans are throwing up into the atmosphere is having some effect but when put into context of temperature rise over tens of thousands of years, it is negligible. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the 90's it raised the annual temperature about 3 degrees for around 4 years or so.

That is absolutely a huge increase but it dissipated. Many warmers don't take into account the earth's ability to absorb damage or correct things out of the normal. The things that were causing warming 20 years ago are already gone.

Basically the effect is not cumulative. We haven't determined this timeline of how quickly the earth can process pollutants and what the limit is before we outpace this "natural healing" but it does happen.

Believe me, I'm stuck sitting here writing a fricken 20 page paper on global warming and I have researched this from every side I can think of.

My conclusion is that yes, humans are having some short term impact, but it doesn't compound onto future generations. Its also important to note that warming will have an impact on ecosystems and what we have now will most certainly change.

This is normal. As certain species are wiped out others flourish and take their place. Look at the wildlife that lives better than ever within human civilizations currently. My apartment complex is filled with birds, lizards, and jackrabbits, all who have no problem adapting to human encroachment on their territory. This can be extended to environments that will see increases in droughts and rainfall due to global warming. Some species will be wiped out, some will adapt, and others will flourish.

The environment is not being destroyed, it is just changing.

reply to post by Kali74


Dont you think we still have a lot to learn about this planet first before we except everything scientists say? We are still immature species with much to learn, we are part of the cycle if we get wiped out life will still find a way always has.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Has it been 125,000 years since year 0 AD?

Kali74
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Has it been 125,000 years since year 0 AD?

I dont understand your comment. Are we looking at the same graph? The one I am looking at, that you posted, seems to show a cyclical spike in temps approx every 125,000 years. That is to what I am referring here.

ETA: I've created an annotated graph per my understanding, in order to clarify my position here.



Am I correct in these annotations that it is approx a 100,000 - 125,000 year natural warming cycle being presented?

Kali74
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Has it been 125,000 years since year 0 AD?

No it has not, but then I would have to ask if you know how to read the graph that you presented.

The "0" at the bottom right hand of the graph represents "present day" or "0 years before present day" and "Years BP" stands for "Years Before Present".

There is indeed a very good cyclic pattern going on with a 107,500 year average and is interesting to note.

reply to post by Tinkerpeach

When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the 90's it raised the annual temperature about 3 degrees for around 4 years or so.

Actually the Mt. Pinatubo eruption lowered global temperatures by .02 to .05 C over 3 years or so. Volcanic eruptions tend to put Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere which reflects sunlight.

Many warmers don't take into account the earth's ability to absorb damage or correct things out of the normal. The things that were causing warming 20 years ago are already gone.

According to who?

reply to post by eriktheawful


Ah didn't notice the YBP, my bad. Will post more on this in the AM.

Kali74
reply to post by Tinkerpeach

 

When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the 90's it raised the annual temperature about 3 degrees for around 4 years or so.

Actually the Mt. Pinatubo eruption lowered global temperatures by .02 to .05 C over 3 years or so. Volcanic eruptions tend to put Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere which reflects sunlight.

Many warmers don't take into account the earth's ability to absorb damage or correct things out of the normal. The things that were causing warming 20 years ago are already gone.

According to who?

Ahh yes that was my mistake. My point was however that nature can and often does have far greater impact on the environment than humans do.

Many people point to the increase in carbon emissions since the industrial revolution as the reason for our current global warming and do not realize that the effects from pollutants put out in 1930 are no longer in the system today. There is no cumulative effect that lasts for decades.

This may actually be more problematic however since any current global warming that is to be attributed to man-made causes means that those amounts are being put rapidly into the atmosphere but once again, we still need to determine how much of the warming can be directly related to human activity as opposed to natural.

reply to post by Krakatoa


The graph still supports AGW theory despite my embarrassing faux pas last night.



Tacking current temperatures to the Vostok graph we can see that we've bypassed the 90,000 year cooling. This should not have happened as our Orbital Precession should be giving us cool summers and not so cold winters, our axial tilt toward the sun should be giving us cooler weather in general... and the sun's output has generally dictated that we should be cooling as well. Yet we've warmed.

reply to post by Tinkerpeach

Ahh yes that was my mistake. My point was however that nature can and often does have far greater impact on the environment than humans do.

Generally that is true and no one would argue that. However there's absolutely no way anyone can dispute that we have interfered with the carbon cycle. We burn up sequestered carbon by billions of gallons per day (worldwide). There is no rational argument for saying that doesn't change and overwhelm the carbon cycle.

Many people point to the increase in carbon emissions since the industrial revolution as the reason for our current global warming and do not realize that the effects from pollutants put out in 1930 are no longer in the system today. There is no cumulative effect that lasts for decades.

Not exactly true. Between 65 and 80% of Co2 is absorbed by the ocean every year, that Co2 takes anywhere from 2-20 years to dissolve and with ocean acidification occurring it's clear that the oceans are reaching their capacity to absorb Co2. Other carbon sequestering processes can take hundreds of thousands of years. Carbon Dioxide doesn't just evaporate it has to be filtered out by a method... either absorbed by the ocean, plants or soil. Plant intake of Carbon Dioxide is generally offset by decay output.

we still need to determine how much of the warming can be directly related to human activity as opposed to natural.

I've shown you how that is done.

reply to post by Kali74


I would call this optically biased, the last 2000 years
on that graph are the same length apart or more than
the previous 50,000.

reply to post by bloodreviara


Yes, the part of the graph that is tacked on is from 1890ish-current. It is not meant to trick you, it's a more extensive look at a much shorter time frame. What can't be argued though by looking at it is that we were at the start of a cooling trend, that trend halted then reversed.

reply to post by Kali74


Wouldn't it be a bit early to assume this as complete truth?
It might be a longer warming period similar to that longer
cold period on that graph, that would be considered normal
in a sense... We do need to protect our environment but
we also need to act wisely in doing so, rushing into something
that big can be dangerous.

We need to make sure the money goes where it really needs
to go.

reply to post by bloodreviara


In my opinion, no, it's not too early to make determinations. For the past 450,000 years the trend was roughly 10k years warming, 90k years cooling. That trend very obviously broke at the industrial age. Could it be coincidence? Could there be some unknown factor? I highly doubt it. One thing, and only one thing was very different at the end of the 19th century.

these arguments never get anywhere. the skeptics continue to say we are alarmists filled with doom-porn ideas.

in every one of these discussions the warming and cooling cycles continue to be brought up to say "it's all business as usual". as if all the scientists are oblivious to the fact that the earth has always gone through cycles. WE KNOW THAT. really, we reallly really reallllllly do. no one is denying normal warming and cooling trends!!!!!!!!

the warming trend is IN OVERDRIVE. that's the issue. we now have more humans on the planet than ever before and we are exponentially growing the population each year. we inhabit places that are highly susceptible to the fast forward of the climate change. the problem will be our food supply and economy trying to cope with people who will have to move on top of disasters we will have to clean up more and more often.

Kali74
reply to post by bloodreviara

 

In my opinion, no, it's not too early to make determinations. For the past 450,000 years the trend was roughly 10k years warming, 90k years cooling. That trend very obviously broke at the industrial age. Could it be coincidence? Could there be some unknown factor? I highly doubt it. One thing, and only one thing was very different at the end of the 19th century.

edit on 25-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

So, if we have halted the natural cooling trend (in your opinion), then haven't we, in effect, delayed a coming ice-age? Also, I would like to see the expanded warming spikes for each time-frame, expanded to the same scale as the end part you added to the graph. That, to me, would be a more accurate comparison to know the previous natural warming profiles. I am not "debunking", just trying to understand the data being presented. The data should lead our thought process, not fear or emotional reactions IMO.

Do you have the data for these from the Vostock core samples to make a comparative graph?



Thanks.

And people think all this worldwide economic chaos is an accident?, I think that people could not be influenced to reduce pollution and use less C02 producing fuels, so they are basically being forced to through financial manipulation.

The best way to reduce activity is to hit somebody right smack in the wallet.

Unfortunately this may be happening, not so much to protect everyone as it is being done to protect a relative select few.

Everybody else will be "Out IN The Cold", either way we all will be anyway.

00.02

reply to post by Kali74

But cherry picking a small period just last few decades is not?? HISTORY shows that climate cycles last way longer than the current timeline they use to decide that the world is warming and if you look at the actual data, you will see that this warming period is not at all unusual for holocene period. And especially not very impressive when you think of the fact that we have been experiencing the STRONGEST solar cycles in over 8000 years.

Also funny how this warming slowed down to a flat trend just as sun went into a grand solar minimum.

And also please explain why we had ice ages hit when the co2 level was in the THOUSANDS of ppm range. There is no real link between co2 other than it trailing the temperatures. Such an ice age would not at all be possible if the co2 theory was correct.
The real threat for us is the coming ice age which will kill BILLIONS if we havent killed ourselfes by then.

reply to post by Krakatoa

So, if we have halted the natural cooling trend (in your opinion), then haven't we, in effect, delayed a coming ice-age?

Is delaying or circumventing an ice-age, or more likely a glacial period... a good thing? It sounds good, I hate cold weather... but it is actually a good thing? Probably not.

Do you have the data for these from the Vostock core samples to make a comparative graph?

Looking...

Kali74
reply to post by Tinkerpeach

 

Isotopes are the Key

How can we distinguish between the different sources and sinks of carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide, or CO2, contains the key piece of information within the carbon atoms themselves. Although it may seem that a carbon atom is just the same as every other carbon atom out there (perhaps they appear to all be clones of each other–where each looks and acts exactly the same), this is not the case.

In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms - all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir - each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.

NOAA

Kali, That graph is, again, scientific guesstimates and speculation based on the isotopic ratio variances between C13 and C12.

The isotopes C13 and C12 are produced both naturally and by burning fossil fuels... with the burning of fossil fuels producing slightly more C12 than C13, thus showing C13 depletion (also known as d13C).

However, scientists are still guesstimating how much was contributed by man by measuring the C13 depletion.

Why is it still guesstimating ?

Because they know damn well that the interannual natural variability shows the same C13/C12 ratio (C13 depletion) as the long-term manmade trend does.

Therefore, they are ignoring natural variabilility and only taking into consideration the C13 depletion caused by burning fossil fuels only.

If they are not using the entire equation, then they are guesstimating how much C13 depletion was caused by man.



Ignoring one aspect of the overall equation to prove one's theory does not empirical evidence make.





... and then of course there's the ocean sink and outgassing of C13/C12, and the annual variability THAT causes (which produces wobbles and hiccups in the long-term trend). But you'd need a whole new thread just to cover that aspect of the neverending climate change equation.


... and just to put the icing on the cake: We have the rising CO2 levels that haven't slowed, but temperatures that have for literally half of the time (15 years) it takes to determine “climate” (30 years), and everybody's ignoring THAT elephant in the room.







But quite frankly, I can't be bothered with this AGW topic anymore... it's been done to death. And will continue to do so until finally, one day, mother nature will show us her unequivocal empirical evidence that will completely flush this AGW theory down the toilet.

But until that day comes… we'll continue to pollute and destroy (nothing to do with AGW) the only home we have because TPTB don't really give a flying rat's butt about anything other than the bottom line.