DescentBB

Zuruck wrote:So...when you dump trillions of tons of toxic chemicals into the air over the decades, you're surprised that it would lead to something bad?

C'mon Spidey, don't you think that's a little mulish, even for you?

I’m surprised you could think of a word such as “mulish”

Dictionary.com: wrote:mul·ish
Pronunciation[myoo-lish]

–adjective of or like a mule, as being very stubborn, obstinate, or intractable.

-Stubborn and intractable; recalcitrant

-unreasonably rigid in the face of argument or entreaty or attack

I've only heard the word once or twice before, so I had to look it up.

Duper wrote:This is where it all goes wrong. "properly" implies that something is supposed to work a certain way all the time. we know that in the past the earths climate has varied to both extremes a great deal. It's not that the currents are working properly but in a way that we have grown accustom. The caps have melted before and they have extended to mid north america... just not in recent history.

Foil wrote:I understand that argument, Duper. And from what I understand, you're correct that the Earth has gone through more drastic climate changes in the past.

Both true. But what is unprecedented over all of history is the rate of change. Climate changes have happened before, but always on the scale of thousands of years. The current rate is too fast for ecosystems to adapt. Also, even those slow drastic climate changes lead to profound extinction events, and shifts in the biological landscapes.

And I have been studying Global Climate Models for the last 3 days, and I still can’t find anything “simple” about it.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

climate model.
Earth system models
atmospheric chemistry
carbon cycle
primitive equations
dissipation
friction
atmospheric waves
wavenumbers
Parametrizations
albedo
hydrology
prognostic equations
diagnostic equations
hydrostatic equation
Oceanic GCMs (OGCMs) model the ocean (with fluxes from the atmosphere imposed) and may or may not contain a sea ice model. For example, the standard resolution of HadOM3 is 1.25 degrees in latitude and longitude, with 20 vertical levels, leading to approximately 1,500,000 variables.
finite difference method
spectral method
gaussian grid

Why do you expect them to be simple?

My mistake…the exact term you used was “Easy” not simple…my bad.

Dupster, I meant "properly" as in how we perceive them today, and how *we* need them. I know there is no "proper" motion for the currents Earth-wise.

Pandora wrote:But what is unprecedented over all of history is the rate of change

This is true? I was under the impression that the start of an ice age can be well underway in as little as 10 years. (How long it lasts and it's extent is something else) The warming trend has been over 100 years. Long before we started to have an effect. Something else has to be going on that our output is just aggravating.

As far as I know, it is, Testi. But now that you are asking I don't have any reference for it. I'll have a look...

edit: you're right. Abrupt climate changes HAVE happened in the past, even quicker than nowadays (i.e. within a lifetime), and have lead to drastic changes in ecosystems and cultures.

Pandora wrote:edit: you're right. Abrupt climate changes HAVE happened in the past, even quicker than nowadays (i.e. within a lifetime), and have lead to drastic changes in ecosystems and cultures.

That doesn't mean that we should keep releasing toxic chemicals into the air and the water. Aggravating it could cause it to happen too quickly for us or for the ecosystems.

Pandora wrote: Both true. But what is unprecedented over all of history is the rate of change. Climate changes have happened before, but always on the scale of thousands of years. The current rate is too fast for ecosystems to adapt.

I'm inclined to disagree here Pand. There are numerous occasions where the fossil and geological record show very rapid and or sudden changes. Many of course due to some kind of catastrophic event like an impact or the like. This Mini ice age we've recently came out of started in the 1600's (I forget the exact date) over the course of a couple of years. It took people totally off guard and many many people died.

And Test, I do apologize. I didn't mean to dump on you. I've heard that expression in several places recently in regard to this very topic and that thought came to forefront. You summed it up well though.

Duper wrote:

Testiculese wrote:This density is what supports the ocean currents. When diluted, the currents won't work properly

This is where it all goes wrong. "properly" implies that something is supposed to work a certain way all the time. we know that in the past the earths climate has varied to both extremes a great deal. It's not that the currents are working properly but in a way that we have grown accustom. The caps have melted before and they have extended to mid north america... just not in recent history.

I'm not trying to minimize any impact could and do have on our environment; I'm simply trying to think on a much larger scale.

the conditions we have today, we have not been able to find repeated throughout the geological record within the lifetime of the modern human species. I believe it has something to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - humans have never experienced it this high. All human migration around the globe has happened SINCE this time.
It might be ok if we all moved back to Africa


The last time CO2 concentrations were this high was before humans existed, and all Proto-humans were of course living safely in tropical Africa.

It seems that 800,000 years ago i so far the longest record we have from ice-core samples. Even back then the CO2 PPM peaked out at only 300.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_flu ... _variation

Keep in mind that this is so long ago that it it estimated to be the time of the evolution of the common ancestor of both Humans and Neanderthals (ie: not even Neanderthals existed yet).
It's good to compare scales of time with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... _evolution


Note in the image BELOW, the N (Neogene) section on the far left is the past 23 million years.
This is part of our current ice-age cycles that started about 50 million years ago. The CO2 concentrations have been rather low since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse ... ouse_Earth

So yeah - CO2 concentrations have been higher on Earth - but a looooong loooooong time ago, way before farming - way before humans had left Africa, way before humans had even evolved yet.

FARMING was only "invented" 10,000 years ago. Before that humans (and if you keep going: proto-humans too) were hunter gatherers. And as such we could have never supported anywhere neat the amount of people on Earth that we currently do, for that we needed farming.

Ever since we invented farming and moved into previously ice-shelf areas (like much of Europe - that iirc melted during the end of the last ice age), we then developed civilisations, and human populations skyrocketed. This has all been within the past 10,000 years - and it's all thanks to FARMING - which is intrinsicly tied into the climate.
(i'm even more personally confused, coz i've never personally experienced ice-cold climates. The only farming i personally have experience with happens YEAR ROUND hehe, coz i've only lived in mediteranian and sub/tropical climates - have never even seen snow.)

Well researched post Roid. The CO2 vs Ice Age graphic is excellent.




Never seen snow. That might change.

im assuming that last graph is backwards? look at the millions of years.

yeah relative to one another the scale is backwards
(but who's to say which one is backwards? hehe)

just note the PartsPerMillion(PPM) on each graph, note how on the 500,000,000 year graph they start at the lower level of 300ppm - which is prettymuch the natural upper limit of the 400,000 year graph (the information for this graph is from the ice-cores - and it shows the ice-ages).

Well here's a 2nd source:

:This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

and as already pointed out several times now, you cannot just pick any year you want (1998) and choose it as basis for your comparison and then come crying \"gotcha gotcha gotcha! if I just pick 1998 as my comparison, we don't have any warming!!!\". Because weirdly the same would not work when you pick any of the surrounding years, like 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, etc.

Duper wrote:I'm inclined to disagree here Pand. There are numerous occasions where the fossil and geological record show very rapid and or sudden changes. Many of course due to some kind of catastrophic event like an impact or the like. This Mini ice age we've recently came out of started in the 1600's (I forget the exact date) over the course of a couple of years. It took people totally off guard and many many people died.

totally missed this post, Duper. Of course you are right, I was mistaken (see also my previous edit to my response to Testi).

Thanks Pan. I'd like to make my position clear. i read back through this thread and I noticed I came off as not giving a crap; and that's not the case at all. I grew up in the 70's when a lot of the \"save the Earth\" stuff was JUST getting started. I am ALL cleaner and more efficient and lighter impact energy sources. I recycle as best I can as it only makes sense to me. But like so many other energy issues, it's only implemented as it is profitable to whatever company is dealing with it.

I really think that things are heating up, but as there are so many extremists out there on this issue and so many agendas, I have a hard time trusting any data I see. I grew up watching green peace doing crazy stoooopid stuff. things that really didn't help matters or exact change. It just got them on the news and ticked a lotta people off. This, I admit, has jaded me a fair bit.

IT makes me laugh when I see graphs and charts and read exposes that definitively proclaim a handle on the matter as the problem is much MUCH more complex than CO2 emmitions. Weather can't be accurately predicted from week to week; barely from day to day. Everyone points (or rather did point) to El Nino a decade or so ago but it's not understood what caused it and there is no data that solidly supports a rational conclusion; just hypothesis. Hypothesis is good as you need a starting point, but all too often the scientific community (pardon the broad generalization)finds one scrap of evidence and postulates \"THIS IS THE ANSWER!\" remember that I am 43 years old and I have seen this time and time again over those years.

Sure, as we rapidly approach 7 billion on this planet, it's imperative that industry and the collective populace finds ways of significantly reducing its impact, but lets stay practical and sane about it. The city of Portland tried to mandate some \"Green community\" regulations that would have made it MORE than burdensome on the average home owner. nearly a 100,000 dollars of retro improvements to meet the standards that they were wanting to adopt. Most folks who own a home here can't afford that. THAT is what I mean by keeping it sane.
There is a lot of talk about cars and car emmitions, what about Jets, and diesel trucks and trains? The newer ones are much more efficient but those are greatly outnumbered by the older ones. So there needs to be some kind of sane implication that isn't going to bury our economy any further than it is or other economies in other countries for that matter.

Also, as i alluded to earlier in a reply to Testi, I don't feel that the earth warming is really a BAD thing. Sure, it's going to make life inconvenient to those living next to water. I don't have an answer for that nor do I have a lot of sympathy - but that's a personal thing and it won't effect anyone. And yeah, i've heard the whole catastrophic scenario of water levels raising 30+ feet. .. I kinda doubt that will happen. There isn't enough exact figures to reach a reliable conclusion there. some ball park figures but even that is sketchy.

and that's kind where i am in a watermelon.