Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@rosborne979,

rosborne979, considering your graph that tracks CO2 and temps long term, and if you are correct that warming is a cyclical long term phenomena unrelated to short term causes, what do you think of the possibility that the apparent CO2 rise is actually being caused by apparent warming, not the other way around? Fact is, if you study your graph, it almost appears that the CO2 line lags the temperature line to a very slight extent. Some scientists have actually suggested that is the case, that CO2 is an effect, not a cause of warming, and your graph certainly does not seem to prove the opposite or what global warmers claim. In all honesty, your graph seems rather inconclusive either way.

Here is more about what I discussed above, that actually CO2 may lag temperature rather than the other way around, and so it may be an effect instead of a cause of temperature rise?:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

The cycle in the ice core data is clear Parados. This isn't complicated. The thermohaline cycle will be shut down when the temperature reaches a certain point, and then the downward trend will be overwhelming.

Really? Scientists are less sure about that then they are that humans are contributing to warming.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Says who ? Maybe in your imagination but it is a self correcting system. Do you know what that means ?

IF it self corrects then why is there variation?

hmm.. maybe this thing you think isn't really what you think. But why don't you contradict yourself some more.

2 Replies

@parados,

Mechanisms--human or natural--that self correct produce variation as they self-correct causes and effects. For example, when an effect becomes too positive, the mechanism corrects the cause, and thereby causes the effect to become less positive and eventually negative. When an effect becomes too negative, the mechanism corrects the cause, and causes the effect to become less negative and eventually positive.

This is true of all such mechanisms. The only real differences are the maximum magnitude of the error that has to be corrected

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Good boy.

Now what happens if you change some of the aspects so the positives overwhelm the negatives?

2 Replies

@parados,

It depends on what "overwhelms" the negatives (or "overwhelms" the positives) actually means. Generally, "overwhelms" means the mechanism has to be adjusted to change the amplitude of the mechanism's response to negative and/or positive feedback of the mechanism's outputs.

When the positives overwhelm the negatives, retune the mechanism so that the positives no longer overwhelm the negatives.

When the negatives overwhelm the positives, retune the mechanism so that the negatives no longer overwhelm the postives.

When the mechanism cannot be adequately retuned, then change the magnitude of those inputs to the mechanism that are actually causing the problem so that the mechanism can be adequately retuned.

When the mechanism's inouts cannot be adequately changed, design a new mechanism that will work better.

When the mechanism's design cannot be adequately changed, then either live with it as is, go where it is not required, or design new mechanisms that can adequately limit the consequences of the excessive positive or negative results of the original mechanism.

For Example:
If S causes 99% of T's results, and C causes 1% of T's results, and S cannot be fixed but C can be fixed, then design new mechanisms that adequately limit the consequences of T's results (e.g., better air conditioning mechanisms, stronger and/or better insulated buildings or barriers).

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Of course, when your plane crashes into the ground, you are no longer in an out of control spin. So at that point I guess the negative no longer overwhelms the positives in your point of view.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

IF it self corrects then why is there variation?

Of all the dumb things you have said in this thread, that takes the cake. There has to be variation for it to self correct. Otherwise it is a stable unchanging system or a non-correcting system. Understand now ?

Quote:

But why don't you contradict yourself some more.

???????

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Now what happens if you change some of the aspects so the positives overwhelm the negatives?

Overwhelms ? How much carbon dioxide has man produced as a percentage of that in the atmosphere ? How much natural variation has existed in the past...that the planet has SELF-CORRECTED.....(hint..the answer to the first one is 5%...the answer to the second one is 10 times what exists now) see if you can get this one right.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Of course, when your plane crashes into the ground, you are no longer in an out of control spin. So at that point I guess the negative no longer overwhelms the positives in your point of view.

Of course, when your plane experiences mild turbulence, you are not in an out of control spin. So at that point I guess it is pointless to run around screaming jump.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

It's all sophistry Io. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. And you didn't answer the question. The tipping point question: when just one more teeny-weeny bit starts an unstoppable cascade going slowly enough for you not to notice it.

You must admit that there are a lot of exhaust fumes and if you feel a bit guilty about your own contributions and seek self-absolution in mindless word-play, of which this is a Green example, it is no reason for you to seek to contribute your influence to determining the direction of the destiny of our home. That, I'm afraid, is in the tender grasp of mindless processes far more mindless than any of our puny mindlessness.

Or, as my father used to often say, "It'll aw cum aaht in't wash." A jocular and metaphorical reference to skid-marks to which entities I have seen the human race compared to.

But it is good fun. Those giant windmills overlooking Haworth Parsonage going "thrap, thrap, thrap" morning, noon and night for example. The garages all tricked out in green as if gas is like dewed meadow grass in spring. That's pretty funny. Even absurd.

1 Reply

@parados,

Flying an airplane requires a persistent search by the pilot for his or her errors, so that he or she can correct them promptly enough to avoid crashing into the ground.

Some pilots have made the mistake of assuming that they have reached a level of proficiency where they no longer make any errors and they cease looking for them. That mistake has often proven fatal.

This is also true about humans generally. When they think they are too proficient at what they do to make any mistakes and cease looking for them, they make mistakes that have often been proven distructive and even fatal.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

And some humans make the mistake of assuming that humans can't change the earth's climate.

But then you show us that every time you post here.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Here is more about what I discussed above, that actually CO2 may lag temperature rather than the other way around, and so it may be an effect instead of a cause of temperature rise?:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

It's not clear from these graphs whether CO2 is a lagging or leading indicator, and it's possible that CO2 is a lagging indicator, but that could just be it's natural sequence. I would point out that if CO2 is artificially (through human activity) increased it could *become* a leading indicator. The graphs only show us the natural sequence, they don't rule out different possibilities given an artificially induces condition.

But even this discussion is still academic to the end result. Regardless of whether CO2 leads or follows, the temperature pattern over the last 600k years is very regular and clear, and with spikes that sharp there is good reason to suspect that the forces which cause them are immense (and unlikely to be altered by simple CO2 changes).

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I beg to differ ol' boy...I have knowledge of flying and Global Warming..it wasnt I who made the comparison, I merely corrected an error in the anology.

Quote:

And you didn't answer the question.

I feel under no obligation to answer a question not directed at me personally.

Quote:

The tipping point question: when just one more teeny-weeny bit starts an unstoppable cascade going slowly enough for you not to notice it.

The answer to that question is 10,000 years ago and ongoing. Mankind has nothing to do with it.

Some measure Global Warming on a very small scale and determine it is rising. How is that proof without first determining what is an appropriate scale ? Why use faulty data collection ? If we measure the temp over the earth's entire existence the planet is experiencing, and will continue to experience Global Freezing.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

It's not clear from these graphs whether CO2 is a lagging or leading indicator, and it's possible that CO2 is a lagging indicator, but that could just be it's natural sequence. I would point out that if CO2 is artificially (through human activity) increased it could *become* a leading indicator. The graphs only show us the natural sequence, they don't rule out different possibilities given an artificially induces condition.

I hope you are looking at the same graph I am, because it seems fairly obvious to me that although what you say about it being inconclusive one way or the other, it seems obvious from the graph shown that CO2 appears more likely to be more often a lagging indicator that follows temperature, not the other way around.

And would I be correct if I pointed out that it is a proven scientific fact that higher temperatures would bring about higher CO2 emissions, whereas it is only a tenuous and unproven theory that higher CO2 emissions produce higher temperatures? This brings up a question, has any scientist ever demonstrated the greenhouse effect using CO2 in a laboratory experiment?

0 Replies

No, okie, you would not be correct if you said CO2 causing higher temps was tenuous and unproven. It's a well-known scientific fact. That's what greenhouse gases DO. that's why they're called greenhouse gases. You ought to know by now that there are several others: water vapor, methane, and stratospheric ozone among them, as well as CO2. They are why the earth is not a frozen snowball some 30 degrees cooler than it is. As a matter of fact, the interaction of infrared radiation and CO2 was first discovered in the laboratory, by Svante Arrhenius, in the 1890s, if I remember the date correctly. So, yes, they have done lab experiments.

CO2 is released from the oceans as temperature rises, IF THE OCEAN IS SATURATED, since as temperature rises a liquid solution can hold less of a given gas and the exess amount is given off. However, the oceans are NOT at saturation, since they are provably becoming more acidic (i.e. absorbing more carbon dioxide, which becomes carbonic acid in solution), and are taking up about 40% of anthropogenic CO2 emission each year. And by Boyle's law, as the partial pressure of a gas in the atmosphere rises, a liquid solution can hold more of that gas. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have raised the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere more than the so-far small amount of temp rise would have caused the oceans to emit the excess CO2, IF THEY WERE AT SATURATION, WHICH THEY ARE NOT. It ain't coming from the oceans.

2 Replies

And that's just the first, quicky layer of the carbon cycle. That's not even getting into the buffering of CO2 which produces carbonates in the ocean, and such things as the removal of carbonates in forming the shells of marine animals (which sink on death and ultimatley become limestone), which let the ocean hold even more CO2. That's not where it's coming from in the atmosphere. It's us.

0 Replies

okie, and what's happening now is different than what causes the ice age/interglacial cycle--that's because of very-long-term periodic changes in the earth's orbit, which cause changes in the amount of solar radiation received by the earth (NOT variations in the sun itself). That interacts with increasing CO2 as a feedback. However now the earth;s orbit is NOT involved and CO2 is rising, much higher than in those ice age cycles--see what it's doing on the right side of your graphs, okie? That's way higher than it got in any of the previous cycles. That's US. The rise in CO2 doesn't correspond with any of the previous long-term cycle changes. that's why the effects will be different--the causes are different.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

No, okie, you would not be correct if you said CO2 causing higher temps was tenuous and unproven. It's a well-known scientific fact. That's what greenhouse gases DO. that's why they're called greenhouse gases. You ought to know by now that there are several others: water vapor, methane, and stratospheric ozone among them, as well as CO2. ....
.....

Sure, I have realized that, and in fact I have pointed out numerous times that water vapor is by far the most dominant greenhouse gas and dwarfs in quantity and probably effect that of CO2. I think what I really meant was - has anyone ever proven that a CO2 increase in a mix of all the other gases, will it cause an increase in temperature in a laboratory experiment, that is if the relative quantities of all greenhouse gases existing around the earth are duplicated in the laboratory?

In regard to CO2 contained and given off by oceans, I was thinking more in regard to vegetation, if the temperatures rise slightly around the earth, it seems logical that the amount of vegetation may increase slightly, which would also produce a corresponding increase in CO2. How do we know that is not occurring as a response to a very very slight increase in temperature? After all, we are also talking about a very very small increase in CO2, if considered as a percentage of total CO2.

We know that during geological ages a few tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years ago, scientists think CO2 was many times what it is today. And those were geological times that were apparently very wet and warm with much vegetation, perhaps drastically more than we have now, which provides a possible at least partial if not full explanation for far higher CO2 concentrations.
In the following graph, it shows high CO2 roughly corresponding with higher plateaus in temperatures, with the highest CO2 far higher than now, sometimes as high as 2,000 to 7,000 ppm. I doubt that was due to mankind's SUVs and power plants spewing CO2, Monterey Jack. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know