Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:16pm PT
|
Chief
another good graph, however it's somewhat irrelevant to global warming.
Note that the nearest end of the graph is at 2million years.
You can see the temperature data you presented with the last 2 million years here:
Note the spike at Present Time (far right end)
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:19pm PT
|
Dingus, the plot you're thinking of may look something like this one, an 800ky reconstruction of temperature and CO2 from Antarctica. There are a number of variations on this theme reflecting earlier and newer research; also an armada of more or less faked-up versions in the denialosphere.
A couple of important things to note:
1. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere so at least on decadal to century and millenial scales, Antarctic CO2 is a reasonable proxy for global CO2. Temperature however is not well mixed, so Antarctic temperature reflects Antarctic temperature -- which is some mix of local, regional and global influences, especially on shorter time scales.
2. CO2 is measured directly from gas bubbles trapped in the ice; temperature is inferred indirectly from isotope ratios. The time depth for both indices is tricky to calculate and depends on models, which are getting better, but there's not a simple horizontal relationship between ice-core temp and CO2 numbers.
Note that current CO2 levels are now above 400 ppm, higher than marked on this graph. Also, "0" thousand years ago does not actually mean today; the end point for the temp reconstruction is something like a century ago (I could look that up).
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:29pm PT
|
What caused them events? Chief
There were many many "events" that caused the earlier fluctuations. Which haven't occurred in the past few hundred years.
Over long periods of time (tens and hundreds of thousands of years) the inclination of the Earth's axis changes, so does our distance from the sun.
There are other less well understood possibilities.
The important thing is the SCALE of time for this global warming is only 150 years or so. A fraction of a blink of an eye in geophysical time.
For a good discussion of the possibilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
But again, anything prior to 2000 years ago is largely irrelevant as you can see by the temperature record.
There is a lot we don't know about the Earth's geophysical history prior to recorded science (2000 - 3000 years).
There is a complete and very precise record of the past 350 years.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:41pm PT
|
Well Chief,
the CO2 record is pretty complete. What caused the fluctuations is less certain. That's the point.
Unlike global warming where there's a very strong scientific consensus for the cause.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:54pm PT
|
The same thing that caused all them other many events just like this one.
Which is? i.e. what's your better (or even feasible) explanation for why CO2 and temperature happened to spike at the same time?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2014 - 08:59pm PT
|
K-man - I asked you to back up [you assertion that] "[Sketch's] views of climate change are based on non-scientific opinion."
Sketch, please tell me why this does not answer your question:
I think that your posts represent your views. So to me, your posting of the cartoon indicates that the cartoon is a representation of your view.
If your views do not align with the cartoon, or your views are different from the opinions you post, tell us so we know they are not your views. Otherwise, we must all assume they are your views.
Is that clear? OK, let me try it again, and I'll be blunt: What you post, including cartoons, represents your viewpoint.
Or why this does not answer your question:
Sketch
May 8, 2014 - 05:26pm PT
Catastrophic global warming / anthropogenic climate disruption is our modern day boogie man.
The powers that be cooked it up after nuclear destruction was no longer an issue.
The masses need a boogie man.
So there it is, in your [Sketch's] own words.
Or why this does not answer your question:
As for knowing your beliefs, I said I got my views from your posts. I posted one, you said it was just a troll. So now I know, I cannot know your beliefs because any time I try to show you a post you made, you deny it's your belief.
Sketch, all your posts land on the Denier side of the AWG fence. Can you prove to me that that's not the case? Can you show me where you've stated that you believe the conclusions of AWG research? If so, show us. Because I can show post after post of where you denounce those very scientific findings, starting with a cartoon you posted that completely misrepresents the WAIS reports.
Why Sketch, why do you keep asking the same question, when I have answered it multiple times? Why do the above quotes from my previous posts not answer your question???
I asked you to show us where you have shown your view. You came up with nothing.
I asked you to show us where you might have posted something that agreed with the conclusions of climate change research. You came up with nothing.
So while I answer your questions, you continue to dodge mine. I've shown good faith in answering your questions, you have showed zero good faith.
Well buddy, now is the time. I'm here. Ed's here, and DMT is here. We are asking you:
What are your views on human caused global warming?
I don't expect anything more of you than snake oil. But here's your chance to show us otherwise.
In chess they politely say, "En garde".
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 09:00pm PT
|
"En garde" More fun when it's fencing.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 09:02pm PT
|
What temperature spike are you talking about Fet? Eight tenths of a degree C in 150 years coming out of the LIA is hardly a spike. Temps plummeted nearly an order of magnitude higher than this measly .8c in decades at the onset of the younger Dryas 12, 800 years ago.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 09:15pm PT
|
Malemutt-as you well know those "fairly basic physics" rely on positive feedbacks to have a profound effect. As you may also know those same positive feedbacks arr not materializing as phophesized in the "holy book of models". The feedbacks seem to be slightly weighted to the negative side of the ledger. I know this is counter intuitive to the doctrines of your CAGW scientism but Earth has an regulatory system that has prevented it from becoming your imagined Venutian hell for several billion years now and will continue to regulate with or without humans for the forseeable future.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 09:21pm PT
|
Rick, before you resume lecturing people with your science knowledge, can you go back to your Younger Dryas declaration a few minutes ago, and figure out two reasons why it's nonsense?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 09:26pm PT
|
Got past record proof of that FET?
Past record proof? Huh? I asked you a question, twice, which you have not answered. No point engaging if you won't answer a simple question.
What temperature spike are you talking about Fet? Eight tenths of a degree C in 150 years coming out of the LIA is hardly a spike. Temps plummeted nearly an order of magnitude higher than this measly .8c in decades at the onset of the younger Dryas 12, 800 years ago.
The one clearly seen on the graph. The LIA was approximately smack dab in the middle of that graph. Again we don't know all the factors at play 12,800 years ago, but we probably do know most of the major factors of the last 1000 years. Hence why we are looking at that time scale.
I ask you the same question as the Chief. If human caused CO2 output didn't cause that spike in temperature what did? You have to have a reasonable alternative explanation that makes more sense. Do you?
And going back to MY post I clearly indicate there could be a different natural explanation. But until someone comes up with something that fits the data better I believe most people who can come to logical conclusions will see human caused global warming as the most likely explanation.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 10:48pm PT
|
The feedbacks seem to be slightly weighted to the negative side of the ledger.
This will probably be the case while there is still plenty of ice to melt.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 11:11pm PT
|
Yes I looked at your post where you didn't answer the question of what caused the temperature to spike.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 11:15pm PT
|
Okay professor Larry, where is the error in the statement about the younger Dryas? I thought you, as well as Ed , quit this thread in disgust over dealing with the barbarians.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 11:48pm PT
|
rick, I post when and what I want to post, and pull posts when I want...
...and if the shoe fits, by all means, wear it.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 12:18am PT
|
Okay Ed, but you have the shoe on the wrong foot, I was responding to professor Larry, not you. Take care amigo and keep that noodle intact by wearing your helmet.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 12:38am PT
|
I also asked you that question originally and now you are answering my initial question to you to show us what caused all them past occurrences with a redirect of my initial question to you.
In other words, dodge cus you haven't clue and are just regurgitating what others/blogs etc are stating.
Good one FET. Typical.
I answered DMT's question and didn't see yours while I was writing my reply. But way to take it into the gutter and throw wild accusations about my posts and knowledge (shouldn't you with all your righteous indignation be above that?). I took nothing from others, other than the graphs I posted.
I posted a simple question. I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible to have any type of constructive dialog. Maybe that's a pipe dream.
In the last approximately 100 years out of the last 1000 temperatures have spiked. What else could cause that? That is the scientific method. You make an observation. Then you come up with a hypothesis. If you can't or won't do that you're just blowing hot air. You could just say "I don't know" and that's a perfectly acceptable answer but it doesn't lend any support to your position.
Taking all politics and insults out of it (if you can) and just using the data I showed come up with a better scientific explanation.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 01:04am PT
|
Because there are many other factors contributing to the climate that were far different millions of years ago.
Your turn.
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 02:18am PT
|
The Deniers just keep using their own ignorance as a foundation for their opinions. They are clearly experts at some other subject.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 02:43am PT
|
Pro Climate Change researchers are now engaged in a debate
about whether their science is being crippled
by a compulsion to conform.
Obviously this pressure to reach a consensus casts huge
suspicion on any 'scientific claims of global warming
destroying humanity.
Most people believe it's a mild curiosity that no one should take alarm
about and no new taxes should be levied to fund more pro climate change
researchers who parrot one another about doomsday fraction of a degree
temperature changes.
Researchers are doubly damned when they support the suppression of
critical evidence in peer reviewed publications. No less is at stake
than the credibility of evidence for climate change and the growing
believe that pro climate change researchers are making it up to keep
their funding stream.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!