Where does these types of articles fit in the Climate Change theories? To me, it doesn’t pass the logic test.You haven't explained what it is that isn't passing the logic test. Can you explain what you're trying to say? (not sure what to make of your second link, but I did find this sentence interesting: "More recently human deforestation is responsible for a carbon flux towards the atmosphere which is ten times the mean annual flux due to vegetation change in response to climate change.") We have an atmosphere that is a major regular of our climate system. Yes there are other factors, but the atmosphere is a major regulating element to the system. CO2 in turn is a major regulator of that system. When CO2 levels are increased or absorbed that will have an impact on the amount of heat being retained by the system. That will perturb temperatures. By burning forests, we increased atmospheric CO2 ____________ Interestingly enough, after Columbus, his men and those that followed, came to the Americas - the diseases they brought along spread through North and South America like wildfire annihilating huge numbers of native indian populations who had actually be burning American forests for centuries for grasslands and such. After that first wave of unintentional genocide, those grasslands and crop-lands reverted to the forests that later generations European settlers would find. It caused an awful lot of land to revert back to forests, so much so, that it sucked an appreciable amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere, this in turn lowered the atmosphere's insulating ability ever so slightly, but enough to trigger the so-called Little Ice Age. All perfectly logical, and even predictable, once one gains an appreciation of the global heat and distribution engine that is our climate. Stanford Report, December 17, 2008 Reforestation helped trigger Little Ice Age, researchers say BY LOUIS BERGERON http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html Research team suggests European Little Ice Age came about due to reforestation in New World October 17, 2011 by Bob Yirka http://phys.org/news/2011-10-team-european-ice-age-due.html
If I understand the article correctly, we should be in an ice age right now. Logically speaking, we are not in an ICE AGE.
The reason I brought this article up is they seem to base their theory on the earth’s eight complete hot to cold cycles based upon 800K of ice core samples.
So, yea, it adds weight to the two Little Ice Age data you posted.
If I understand the article correctly, we should be in an ice age right now. Logically speaking, we are not in an ICE AGE. The reason I brought this article up is they seem to base their theory on the earth’s eight complete hot to cold cycles based upon 800K of ice core samples. So, yea, it adds weight to the two Little Ice Age data you posted.What article are you talking about?
The reason I brought this article up is they seem to base their theory on the earth’s eight complete hot to cold cycles based upon 800K of ice core samples.No, the theory is based on physics!!! - The ice core evidence supports the physics based theory! To claim that the ice cores are what our scientific understanding is based is nothing less than a lie. Just like saying our understanding is based on model runs - that is also a bald faced lie. 27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
Oh NO!
Are we supposed to be on topic. :lol:
Climate models are even more accurate than you thought
psik
If I understand the article correctly, we should be in an ice age right now. Logically speaking, we are not in an ICE AGE. The reason I brought this article up is they seem to base their theory on the earth’s eight complete hot to cold cycles based upon 800K of ice core samples. So, yea, it adds weight to the two Little Ice Age data you posted.What article are you talking about? See Post #39
The reason I brought this article up is they seem to base their theory on the earth’s eight complete hot to cold cycles based upon 800K of ice core samples.No, the theory is based on physics!!! - The ice core evidence supports the physics based theory! To claim that the ice cores are what our scientific understanding is based is nothing less than a lie. Just like saying our understanding is based on model runs - that is also a bald faced lie. 27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco Ok, where does the physics tell us where is the earth located at in the natural climate cycle? My understanding is that Ruddiman is saying that we should be in an Ice Age now. It is understood and not contested that the cycle takes 90,000 years to warm the earth, but only 10,000 years for the cooling process. Forget for right now the global warming and climate change and agree where the earth is located in the natural cycle. Then add the global warming and climate change. Are we headed to the peak of the warming cycle? At the peak of the warming cycle? Over the peak of the warming cycle and are now in the cooling cycle? Ruddiman is saying that we are over the peak and should be in the normal Ice Age if it wasn’t for the global warming affect.
The reason I brought this article up is they seem to base their theory on the earth’s eight complete hot to cold cycles based upon 800K of ice core samples.No, the theory is based on physics!!! - The ice core evidence supports the physics based theory! To claim that the ice cores are what our scientific understanding is based is nothing less than a lie. Just like saying our understanding is based on model runs - that is also a bald faced lie. 27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco Ok, where does the physics tell us where is the earth located at in the natural climate cycle? My understanding is that Ruddiman is saying that we should be in an Ice Age now. It is understood and not contested that the cycle takes 90,000 years to warm the earth, but only 10,000 years for the cooling process. Forget for right now the global warming and climate change and agree where the earth is located in the natural cycle. Then add the global warming and climate change. Are we headed to the peak of the warming cycle? At the peak of the warming cycle? Over the peak of the warming cycle and are now in the cooling cycle? Ruddiman is saying that we are over the peak and should be in the normal Ice Age if it wasn’t for the global warming affect. I have not idea where you get that from. How about a link. I find it hard to believe Ruddiman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruddiman) is predicting we are heading towards an ice age. Had anthropogenic supercharging of our atmosphere's insulating component NOT happened than we would be heading towards an ice age. But we have massively altered the composition of our atmosphere with the result that the next ice age has been cancelled. After all it's been fairly subtle alteration that have brought about these cycle in the past - so it shouldn't be that surprising that the big changes we've brought about to our planet will have big consequences. Tell you what while you're looking up that Ruddiman stuff, you might also want to look at some of the graphs and information that I've put up at http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/malicious-ignorance-1000frolly-monckton.html
If I understand the article correctly, we should be in an ice age right now. Logically speaking, we are not in an ICE AGE. The reason I brought this article up is they seem to base their theory on the earth’s eight complete hot to cold cycles based upon 800K of ice core samples. So, yea, it adds weight to the two Little Ice Age data you posted.What article are you talking about? See Post #39 The article you linked explains how man's actions slowed global cooling. Many computer models show we would be entering another ice age if not for man's carbon emissions. So yeah, I'd say you misunderstood the article.
Ok, where does the physics tell us where is the earth located at in the natural climate cycle? My understanding is that Ruddiman is saying that we should be in an Ice Age now.Various sources that I do not recall enough to name seem to indicate that we should be at the beginning of a decline into an Ice Age. We have a definition problem in that some sources imply that since there has always been ice at the poles for the last million years we have always been in an Ice Age during that time. It simply cycles through more or less intense Ice Age. So we should be at the end of a less intense period. psik
If I understand the article correctly, we should be in an ice age right now. Logically speaking, we are not in an ICE AGE. The reason I brought this article up is they seem to base their theory on the earth’s eight complete hot to cold cycles based upon 800K of ice core samples. So, yea, it adds weight to the two Little Ice Age data you posted.What article are you talking about? See Post #39 The article you linked explains how man's actions slowed global cooling. Many computer models show we would be entering another ice age if not for man's carbon emissions. So yeah, I'd say you misunderstood the article. If we should be in an ice-age, and we just came through the hottest year in recent history, then this should be of great concern. It would mean that GW is much greater than we even suspected.
If I understand the article correctly, we should be in an ice age right now. Logically speaking, we are not in an ICE AGE. The reason I brought this article up is they seem to base their theory on the earth’s eight complete hot to cold cycles based upon 800K of ice core samples. So, yea, it adds weight to the two Little Ice Age data you posted.What article are you talking about? See Post #39 The article you linked explains how man's actions slowed global cooling. Many computer models show we would be entering another ice age if not for man's carbon emissions. So yeah, I'd say you misunderstood the article. If we should be in an ice-age, and we just came through the hottest year in recent history, then this should be of great concern. It would mean that GW is much greater than we even suspected. I agree, that is the point. The ICE CORES are solid history of our past that show the Milankovitch cycle. According to Mr. Hansen, he suggests the earth should be just beginning to head into its next ice ae cycle. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php But this data isn’t getting much play. How come? And we still don’t have an answer for the Neoproterozoic climatic paradox when the CO2 was 300 times more than today’s levels and it was a snowball for 10 million years. I still back the models and think we are only four years away from good working models.
And we still don’t have an answer for the Neoproterozoic climatic paradox when the CO2 was 300 times more than today’s levels and it was a snowball for 10 million years.Well they do have some pretty good ideas based on evidence. If you're curious about it, I've put together a blog post you should find interesting: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/3-evolution-carbon-biosphere-hazen.html It's built around a talk by Robert Hazen: "Unanswered questions in deep carbon research" - where I added all sorts of extra information from other sources that speak to that very question. And there's another talk of his worth the listen - in a post a few days earlier "{2} Co-evolution of Minerals and Life | Dr Robert Hazen" (1/9/16) Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2 (half hour) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" (an hour) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
I don’t see much point in going back more than a billion years in the study of climate in relation to the anthropogenic warming problem. 10 million years should be more than enough. The issue is what to do in the next few decades not what happened before there were plants to affect the carbon-oxygen cycle.
It is merely “scientifically” interesting. :lol:
psik
I don't see much point in going back more than a billion years in the study of climate in relation to the anthropogenic warming problem. 10 million years should be more than enough. The issue is what to do in the next few decades not what happened before there were plants to affect the carbon-oxygen cycle. It is merely "scientifically" interesting. :lol: psikTrue enough. Now we just gotta figure out how to tell that to the idiots on the other side of aisle.
But this data isn’t getting much play. How come? And we still don’t have an answer for the Neoproterozoic climatic paradox when the CO2 was 300 times more than today’s levels and it was a snowball for 10 million years.Hi, I'm new so please let me know if I'm butting in to existing conversations. My understanding of the high level of atmospheric CO2 during the snowball Earth period is they were the result of the global glaciation. When all the continents are along the equator there's no way to prevent a runaway glaciation event if the ice cover reaches within 30 degree of the equator...I forget how it works exactly it has to do with uptake of CO2 from land surfaces that are no longer present when all the continents are along the Equator and an albedo feedback. So when climatic variation at the time pushed glaciation over this limit there was no way to stop it, ice cover reached all the way to the equator. This blocked the uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans and weathering from rock. Volcanic activity was still able to push trough the ice cover and CO2 built up slowly in the Earth's atmosphere because there was no mechanism to remove it. After it reached certain levels it provided enough of a positive radiative forcing to overcome the negative forcing of having a highly reflective ice cover over most of the Earth. The Earth then warmed rapidly, the oceans were once again available to take in CO2 as was exposed land cover. This was probably repeated a number of times in freeze/fry cycles or so the theory goes. It's just one more piece of evidence of how important CO2 is in maintaining a global climate equilibrium I think, we wouldn't even be here if CO2 wasn't a very powerful factor in forcing the climate into different states depending on its atmospheric concentration. As for climate models, they're intended as a check on current data and a guide to look at where further change may take us. They cover a broad range of possible forcings, people who claim inaccuracy in climate models show there is little understanding of human forced climate change have little understanding of what climate models are or what their intent is. They give a range of solutions given certain inputs, they're not some mystical divination of the natural world. Although I imagine they could seem that way to people who seem to use magical thinking to discount the huge amount of empirical evidence in support of human driven climate change. http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-do-climate-models-work.html http://www.elsevierscitech.com/emails/physics/climate/the_origins_of_computer_weather_prediction.pdf On the glaciation cycles, according to Hansen in his book, with just one factory producing CFCs there would be no possibility of a new ice age on the Earth. The negative forcings of the Milanchovitch cycle are tiny and work applied over thousands of years with strong direct feedbacks resulting in a much cooler Earth and largely ice covered Northern Hemisphere. They would be completely overwhelmed by the much greater positive human radiative forcings from things like emitting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 over the last couple of centuries plus a bunch of other changes.
On the glaciation cycles, according to Hansen in his book, with just one factory producing CFCs there would be no possibility of a new ice age on the Earth. The negative forcings of the Milanchovitch cycle are tiny and work applied over thousands of years with strong direct feedbacks resulting in a much cooler Earth and largely ice covered Northern Hemisphere. They would be completely overwhelmed by the much greater positive human radiative forcings from things like emitting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 over the last couple of centuries plus a bunch of other changes.I would think once we understand the system enough it should be relatively easy to eliminate future ice ages. But it will require a significant amount of long term self control on humanity's part. We can't have these idiotic economies where we pretend planned obsolescence isn't happening and causes unnecessary CO2 production. psik
On the glaciation cycles, according to Hansen in his book, with just one factory producing CFCs there would be no possibility of a new ice age on the Earth. The negative forcings of the Milanchovitch cycle are tiny and work applied over thousands of years with strong direct feedbacks resulting in a much cooler Earth and largely ice covered Northern Hemisphere. They would be completely overwhelmed by the much greater positive human radiative forcings from things like emitting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 over the last couple of centuries plus a bunch of other changes.I would think once we understand the system enough it should be relatively easy to eliminate future ice ages. But it will require a significant amount of long term self control on humanity's part. We can't have these idiotic economies where we pretend planned obsolescence isn't happening and causes unnecessary CO2 production. psik That seems to be the case. It should be possible to manage many of the important cycles like the carbon cycle to create sustainable economies and societies. But that requires breaking some very long term habits and mindsets. Like the Earth is an infinite resource we can exploit at will, which seems to be behind climate change denial and our current disposable economies.
It should be possible to manage many of the important cycles like the carbon cycle to create sustainable economies and societies. But that requires breaking some very long term habits and mindsets. Like the Earth is an infinite resource we can exploit at will, which seems to be behind climate change denial and our current disposable economies.I've head people argue that point with me. I don't understand the cognitive dissonance required for an educated person to believe Earth's resources are infinite.
When temperatures are averaged at a global scale, the differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree. In the NOAA data set, 2015 was 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 2014, the largest jump ever over a previous record. NASA calculated a slightly smaller figure, but still described it as an unusual one-year increase.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?_r=0 Holy Sh!t! psik PS - 0.16 Celsius