Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2009 - 05:03pm PT
|
Eric Steig, director of the Quaternary Research Center at the University of Washington, writes an excellent, plain-English reply regarding the CO2 question here. An excerpt:
"The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)
When I give talks about climate change, the question that comes up most frequently is this: 'Doesn’t the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round?'
On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable question. It is no surprise that it comes up because it is one of the most popular claims made by the global warming deniers....
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.
Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. We don't really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be younger older than the gas bubbles it encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain). Still, the best published calculations do show values similar to those quoted by Barton (presumably, taken from this paper by Monnin et al. (2001), or this one by Caillon et al. (2003)). But the calculations can only be done well when the temperature change is large, notably at glacial terminations (the gradual change from cold glacial climate to warm interglacial climate). Importantly, it takes more than 5000 years for this change to occur, of which the lag is only a small fraction (indeed, one recently submitted paper I'm aware of suggests that the lag is even less than 200 years). So it is not as if the temperature increase has already ended when CO2 starts to rise. Rather, they go very much hand in hand, with the temperature continuing to rise as the the CO2 goes up. In other words, CO2 acts as an amplifier, just as Lorius, Hansen and colleagues suggested."
There's much more in Steig's post, along with many citations to the actual research on this topic.
|
|
tooth
Mountain climber
Guam
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2009 - 05:04pm PT
|
Just downloaded my 89 dives from the past 8 months onto my computer from my dive computer. Except for 3 dives in australia, they are all from around the tiny island of Guam.
8 months ago the average coldest temperature encountered on a dive was 87 degrees. It has dropped every month and now the average is 79 degrees.
This is good. It will be cold enough to kill off the moss parasite that has been growing over and killing the coral around here. The old locals say the diving will become really colorful in a few more months as the grey moss disappears and new coral grows. They say it has been years since it last happened.
The air temperature has also cooled here. Rainy season will start in another 2-3 months, we'll see if that warms things up at all. Since Jan we have just had clear sunny skies.
Just some data from one part of the world 13 degrees north of the equator.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2009 - 05:25pm PT
|
This is good. It will be cold enough to kill off the moss parasite that has been growing over and killing the coral around here. The old locals say the diving will become really colorful in a few more months as the grey moss disappears and new coral grows. They say it has been years since it last happened.
Nice to hear of something going right for the coral, tooth, even if it's just one season.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2009 - 11:53pm PT
|
The science is indisputable. We are affecting the global temperature due to the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
What other species discovered fossil fuels which are vast Carbon sinks, that safely buried and sequestered Carbon in the ground to one day discover, "Hey, this stuff burns great for heat and energy!" ? We have been releasing vast amounts of Carbon since the Industrial Revolution. Again, this is artificial. Without the combustion of fossil fuels the Carbon would be safely sequestered in the ground still. We have done this. No other organism on Earth has.
We have significantly altered the natural release amounts of Carbon and dramitically altered the natural Carbon Cycle from normal. It is bound to have a dramatic affect.
To really understand the problem you need to understand at a chemistry (Stoichiometry) level:
Photosynthesis
Respiration
Combustion
The Carbon Cycle
Greenhouse Gases
Global Warming
Just look to Venus to see what global warming out of control can do to a planet (due to CO2, H2O vapor release etc. from volcanism).
Yes, there are natural cycles with Solar Activity that have and do alter the Earth's climate, but there is no doubt now, that greenhouse gases also do. One we can't control, the other we can.
Is it not the prudent thing to do --- to get off fossil fuels and use as much as possible only the clean renewable energy resources that do not negatively affect the natural systems of Mother Earth, that we can't survive without?
Earth, it is our only home.
The Sun should do fusion for another 5 billion years before it dramitically changes. We are hit everyday with enough Sunlight energy to power all our needs by multiple factors. This is what we have to do.
On-edit:
Yes, you can't put a meter on the Sun, and that is why the NWO and the powers that be, hate it so much. Their gravy train would abrubtly come to an end. The economy would change.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 11:46am PT
|
Right wing bible-thumping flat earth morons should really STFU and step aside when it comes to issue of science. Buffoons, all of them.
|
|
malabarista
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 11:57am PT
|
If you have the time, listen to this excellent podcast by James Lovelock. It will help you understand why Global Warming is a dire issue.
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/thinkaboutscience_20080103_4325.mp3
James Lovelock has spent decades studying the natural biotic processes which are responsible for temperature regulation on earth. These are now all distressed. His view is that by the end of the century humans will only be able to live near the polar regions and on some islands. His view is that it is already too late to stop a huge jump in temperature that will make most of the earth inhospitable to humans.
Lovelock is an independent scientist, funded by no organization, so no motivation I can see for any kind of "agenda". He's also a very old man at this point. He's a former NASA scientist and the inventor of the electron capture detector, which among other things made it possible to measure the level of CFCs in the atmosphere.
|
|
TYeary
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 12:15pm PT
|
What ever is happening, I'm pretty sure we are contributing to the overall picture. Man's ability to create technology is exceded only by his inability to use it responsibly. One of these days, this old Earth will shake us off her back like a dog does fleas.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 12:16pm PT
|
i don't see any bible-thumping in this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY
which of these credentialed scientists are morons and why?
let's argue the data...isn't that what scientists are supposed to do?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 12:33pm PT
|
"which of these credentialed scientists are morons and why? "
Bush, Inhofe, pretty much all your skeptic buddies and their followers.
Biblde-thumping flat earth right wing dipshits all of them (or just plain greedy).
Even oil industry climate scientists said the data for artificial GW was "incontrovertible" though of course, the lobby said otherwise.
But why should oil companies bother paying for lobbyists when they have a gullible segment of the public--many of whom post here--who will do their bidding?
So go ahead Bookworm, keep looking for the few scientists who support the view of how you would like things to be (and not necessarily how they actually are). There are good reasons why such folks are considered fringe.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 12:49pm PT
|
ummm...bush and inhofe aren't scientists...come on, dirt, if you're going to make accusations provide some evidence...all of the scientists in the vid are clearly named so find some evidence of their quackery...refute their claims with data
if the science is so overwhelmingly in your favor it should be easy for you to convince me with incontrovertible data
|
|
Dick_Lugar
Trad climber
Indiana (the other Mideast)
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 01:58pm PT
|
Go ask the Venusians how C02 has treated their planet...last I heard, it was pretty hot and miserable. Last I checked, there weren't any other planets in our solar system that would sustain life as we know it. So, if you want to gamble with our atmosphere that we can't permenantly or irreverisbly phuk it up, better think twice before you sign the dotted line...
|
|
Dick_Lugar
Trad climber
Indiana (the other Mideast)
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 03:54pm PT
|
What's really ironic is how Bushie and the neo-cons bitched and whined that the Kyoto treaty would be harmful to the US economy, then they single handedly brought ours and the the world's economy to a screeching halt...now that's funny!
Edit: and you expect us to take you seriously Bookgrub? That's even funnier...
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 04:49pm PT
|
Well, the "science" they are spouting off is at about Junior High level.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 04:59pm PT
|
First of all, though sketch posted some thngs that seem to imply otherwise, there isn't alot of dispute that there has been some rise in average temperatures over the last century, and particularly over the last several decades. The more frequent disputes are whether people are causing it, and if so can we do something about it for a reasonable cost?
Secondly, the question isn't whether you can find some scientists that dispute man-made global warming. The question is what do the independent scientists that specialize in that type of thing believe? I could care less what an Exxon funded scientist thinks, and not much more what a particle physcist thinks (no offense to Ed H.). What matters are the thoughts of climatologists and upper atmosphere specialists that are experts in this. And from what I undertand, pretty much the solid majority of those folks agree that we are warming, and that it is due in significant part to man-made emissions of C02.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009 - 05:44pm PT
|
steve p, what's the difference between a scientist funded by a corporation and a scientist funded by an environmental group? both have motivation to produce findings that will continue their funding...back in the 80s, when acid rain was the flavor of the day, a biologist researching frog deformations concluded that acid rain was probably the cause...then when the disappearing ozone became the new favorite flavor, he actually produced two reports, the second with "ozone depletion" inserted for "acid rain" to receive more funding...the truth? the deformations were caused by a naturally occuring parasite
again, you continue to attack the scientists but ignore the science...if the "truth" is as indisputable as you say, then it should be real easy for you to refute the conclusions of these "morons"...come on, educate me
in the meantime:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!