A paper on a coming ice age as printed in Pravda. Not the explanation on why CO2 has risen as records indicate CO2 has risen more in past climatic cycles. Also, as I have stated before, earths changing orbit and tilt have a much more dramatic impact than what mankind can ever do. Look for the carbon offset money changers to go out of business. I'll do a TC and post whole article here as it makes the most sense of climatic change that I've read yet:
\"The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.
Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Czech mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.
In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, \"… must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.\"
During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.
The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.
The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia ’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time
The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.
The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.
The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.
About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.
The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored\"
Ageless Cycles
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
The \"hockey stick graph\" I remember from the movie dealt not with temperature but with CO2 levels, calculated from 650,000 years worth of Antarctic ice cores--a time that doesn't seem too narrow compared with those astrological cycles. Right around the beginning of the industrial revolution was where CO2 levels began that hockey stick spike.
Appears as of today:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/ ... _ice_age-0
Feel free to debunk it or show it is fallacious. I'd rather have correct info.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/ ... _ice_age-0
Feel free to debunk it or show it is fallacious. I'd rather have correct info.
as Duper says, this stuff is outdated. It ignores the \"effects exceed cause\" problem of Milankovitch cycles, namely that the temperature changes are much too big to be caused only by the slight changes in solar irradiation. So Milankovitch cycles by themselves cannot explain past switches between ice ages and warming periods.
What is missing are the crucial feedback mechanisms. One feedback mechanism is ice cover. If it gets warmer, ice cover retreats. Due to this, less light is reflected back into space. It is stored in the atmosphere instead and it gets even warmer. A vicious circle is created that amplifies the slight changes induced by the milanchovitch cycles and the temperature jumps upwards.
Because the article is ignorant of feedback mechanisms, it can only mis-represent the role of CO2 . As the article explains, if it gets warmer, CO2 is released from the oceans. But, in contrast to what the article implies, the story doesn't end here. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it acts as a further important feedback mechanism. Greenhouse gases trap sunlight within the earth's atmosphere, therefore leading to further warming. Again, this is a vicious cycle. The warmer it gets, the more CO2 is released, and the more sunlight is trapped, so that - again - the small changes induced by Milanchovitch cycles are amplified, and runaway warming occurs.
Of course these are not the only feedback mechanisms, but two of the most important ones. Only if you combine feedback mechanisms with milanchovitch cycles can you explain how the earth goes from ice age to warming period and back again. The important lesson is that these mechanisms are positive, that is, they do not dampen any effects, but multiply them. Small changes will therefore not be compensated, but may lead to runaway behaviour of the system --- as the Milanchovitch cycles teach us.
What is missing are the crucial feedback mechanisms. One feedback mechanism is ice cover. If it gets warmer, ice cover retreats. Due to this, less light is reflected back into space. It is stored in the atmosphere instead and it gets even warmer. A vicious circle is created that amplifies the slight changes induced by the milanchovitch cycles and the temperature jumps upwards.
Because the article is ignorant of feedback mechanisms, it can only mis-represent the role of CO2 . As the article explains, if it gets warmer, CO2 is released from the oceans. But, in contrast to what the article implies, the story doesn't end here. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it acts as a further important feedback mechanism. Greenhouse gases trap sunlight within the earth's atmosphere, therefore leading to further warming. Again, this is a vicious cycle. The warmer it gets, the more CO2 is released, and the more sunlight is trapped, so that - again - the small changes induced by Milanchovitch cycles are amplified, and runaway warming occurs.
Of course these are not the only feedback mechanisms, but two of the most important ones. Only if you combine feedback mechanisms with milanchovitch cycles can you explain how the earth goes from ice age to warming period and back again. The important lesson is that these mechanisms are positive, that is, they do not dampen any effects, but multiply them. Small changes will therefore not be compensated, but may lead to runaway behaviour of the system --- as the Milanchovitch cycles teach us.
This is just utterly wrong. The Vostok Ice cores show that current CO2 levels are unprecedented in the least 350.000 years, spanning several warming and ice age periods. See below for a graph (the lows correspond to ice ages, the peaks to interglacials):Pravda wrote:The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.
We also know that this red spike in the CO2-data is NOT released from the oceans. Why? Simply because it has a different chemical structure, one that is associated with the burning of fossil fuel.
Re:
Do you mean different distribution of isotopic abundance here, for the carbon and/or the oxygen in the CO2?Pandora wrote:We also know that this red spike in the CO2-data is NOT released from the oceans. Why? Simply because it has a different chemical structure, one that is associated with the burning of fossil fuel.
By chemical structure, CO2 is CO2.
Pandora, the one thing that jumps out in your graph, is the blue line which I assume is the temp. I note the previous peaks are higher than where we are at today. If this is correct then even with the red line spike of CO2, our temps today are still lower than they were during previous cycles. So how does one rationalize why temps peaked higher in previous cycles where man was of no significance ?
Re:
Heat wave? Then why is the antarctic ice mass at a unprecedented high?:Sirius wrote:I would also like to point out that concurrently with the large cold snap in the northern hemisphere, there has been a heat wave in the southern hemisphere.
"Just as we set a new record in the northern hemisphere for minimum sea ice area in September, the southern hemisphere has officially set a new record for maximum sea ice area. According to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Polar Research Group the southern hemisphere sea ice area reached 16.17 million square kilometers, narrowly breaking the old record of 16.03 million square kilometers. The record data goes back to 1979."
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2 ... ce_re.html
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10136
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Let's suppose for a minute that Pandora's understanding of global warming is the most accurate.
Lets accept the contention that it is scientifically supported using logic and math not propaganda or politics for a minute.
If that is the case then please apply the same sound reasoning to examining the proposed solutions that are being pushed to become 'world law' to prevent a continuation of the problem:
Severely restrict and penalize the #1 polluter (23%) to the point of crashing their economy and taxing the citizens payable to the new 'world authority' an authority who will dictate not only the penalty/tax but also new behavior and living standards changing life as they know it in big sweeping ways.
At the same time exempt the #2, #3 and #4 polluters who together produce 27.49% of the pollution and are growing rapidly because it would be harmful to their economic development. and that is just the top three that are exempt, there are more.
Politics aside, emotion and class envy aside, I'd love to hear a defense of the scientific method used to come up with that \"solution\"!!
Show me the data that proves the solution was going to stop or significantly slow down the measurable global warming....
If you can't prove the solution will actually stop or slow the warming then the solution must be judged on what we can prove about it, that it is a politically loaded power play by anti-western, anti-American interests fear mongering the issue for their own gain.
My conclusion is that if the problem is as bad as they say it is then the solution they offer isn't even close to solving the problem yet it transfers wealth and power on a giant scale! So ask yourself what are these people trying to accomplish? For the answer follow the money.
Lets accept the contention that it is scientifically supported using logic and math not propaganda or politics for a minute.
If that is the case then please apply the same sound reasoning to examining the proposed solutions that are being pushed to become 'world law' to prevent a continuation of the problem:
Severely restrict and penalize the #1 polluter (23%) to the point of crashing their economy and taxing the citizens payable to the new 'world authority' an authority who will dictate not only the penalty/tax but also new behavior and living standards changing life as they know it in big sweeping ways.
At the same time exempt the #2, #3 and #4 polluters who together produce 27.49% of the pollution and are growing rapidly because it would be harmful to their economic development. and that is just the top three that are exempt, there are more.
Politics aside, emotion and class envy aside, I'd love to hear a defense of the scientific method used to come up with that \"solution\"!!
Show me the data that proves the solution was going to stop or significantly slow down the measurable global warming....
If you can't prove the solution will actually stop or slow the warming then the solution must be judged on what we can prove about it, that it is a politically loaded power play by anti-western, anti-American interests fear mongering the issue for their own gain.
My conclusion is that if the problem is as bad as they say it is then the solution they offer isn't even close to solving the problem yet it transfers wealth and power on a giant scale! So ask yourself what are these people trying to accomplish? For the answer follow the money.
Re:
Bingo!Will Robinson wrote: My conclusion is that if the problem is as bad as they say it is then the solution they offer isn't even close to solving the problem yet it transfers wealth and power on a giant scale! So ask yourself what are these people trying to accomplish? For the answer follow the money.
We've not gotten snow here in the valley of TN for almost 2 years... and for several years before that we've received little snow. Weather has been very mild and winter tends to not begin until late January. Well, I'm not complaining. I don't like winter and I don't like the cold. However, I do find it odd that the snow keeps turning into rain before it comes down and that we do not have very many cold days anymore. The seasons seem to be off too. Winter started late again last year, and didn't warm up until later in May, then summer lasted through the fall months and then when it should be cold and misery, it's warm and pleasant. (Besides all the rainy days we suddenly got). And now it seems like winter is settling in with its cold days.
I have an opinion as to the lack of snow we recived. We are just now coming out of a \"drought\" period, so if there is no water coming our way, then there is no snow coming as well.
I'm only 22 yrs old, but it does seem to me that the earth's climate is changing, naturally, towards a goal for a new kind of cycle for itself. And I used to think that the shadows of nature in the fall were slightly off due to the major earthquake back in the end of 2004.
I have an opinion as to the lack of snow we recived. We are just now coming out of a \"drought\" period, so if there is no water coming our way, then there is no snow coming as well.
I'm only 22 yrs old, but it does seem to me that the earth's climate is changing, naturally, towards a goal for a new kind of cycle for itself. And I used to think that the shadows of nature in the fall were slightly off due to the major earthquake back in the end of 2004.
\"At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, \"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?\"
-
SilverFJ
- DBB Cowboy
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 1999 2:01 am
- Location: Missoula, Montana
- Contact:
Woodchip-
You might know this, but global warming melts the polar ice caps. When this frosty cold water is allowed to enter ocean currents it temporarilly cools the oceans, and thus the planet temperature. But when this water acclimates with the water around it, the cooling will cease dramatically. Now it's the calm before the storm.
You might know this, but global warming melts the polar ice caps. When this frosty cold water is allowed to enter ocean currents it temporarilly cools the oceans, and thus the planet temperature. But when this water acclimates with the water around it, the cooling will cease dramatically. Now it's the calm before the storm.