Is the warming in the 20th century extraordinary?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, May 19, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,196
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,446
    [​IMG]

    from Hide the decline - Latest News (hidethedecline)
    interesting article on temperature spikes in the last 1/2 million years via the Volstok Ice Core Data. it seems as if our present temp spike is pretty average.

    on a different topic, the two factions fighting it out on this forum are acting like idiots by pretending that only their side has real evidence and that the other side is driven by distorted reasons such as politics, pseudo-religion or stupidity. there is a lot of evidence, some falling distinctly on one side or the other but most of it is equivical. exaggerations seem to rule the day, more on the CAGW side but that is only because they have more studies and more access to the media, many of the skeptics would be just as bad if given the chance.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,196
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,446
    no one finds it interesting that the many 1-3C spikes in the similar interglacials patterns of the last 1/2 million years has led to the runaway warming predicted by the CAGWists?

    lukewarmers think that the globe has warmed up in the last 150 years since the Little Ice Age. they also believe that CO2 has played a part, probably small, 1C per CO2 doubling minus the standard negative feedbacks that the earth has for just about any disruption of the staus quo. there are many, many factors involved in the climate, some of them manmade. what is the net result for black carbon? no one knows for sure. is arctic ice melting a net heat gain or loss? does the loss of an insulating barrier cancel out the loss of albedo (the ice is there when the sun is high and gone when the sun is low). different experts have different opinions. are land use and urban heat island effects more significant than CO2? is population growth the real problem? this is no simple problem that can be solved by turning off the power.
     
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,235
    Thanks Received:
    14,914
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,018
    Are these the same ice samples that showed a CO2 increase on average 800 years AFTER the Warming?
     
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,196
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,446
    yes. but I havent heard of any convincing explanations as to why there should be a long lag time like that. the oceans equilibrate faster than that for warming/CO2 release or cooling/CO2 dissolving.
     
  5. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,235
    Thanks Received:
    14,914
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,018
    Too bad it can't tell us how much water vapor was in the atmosphere at the time
     
  6. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,196
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,446
    the water cycle always adapts to the conditions. thats why there was liquid water billions of years ago when the suns output was much less than today. - think future science may just find that the crazy hungarian was on to something.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    The glacial periods, and interglacial responded to the Milankovic Cycles. The response varied the CO2 in the atmosphere from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. At no time in the last 15 million years was the CO2 at 390 ppm, and the CH4 ran around 700 ppb for most of this period. Now the CH4 is at 1800 ppb.

    The response to the present level of GHGs lags about 30 to 50 years, so what we are seeing right now is the response from the level between 1960 and 1980. Even if we ceased all output of GHGs right now, there would still be rapid warming for the next 30 to 50 years.

    That warming is not including what may be the real player in this game, the feedbacks from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and permofrost in Siberia and North America.

    Yes, there have been prior periods of rapid warmning or cooling. The Younger Dryas, for one. And the planet survived just fine. The problem is not the planet, today, the problem is the 7 billion humans that inhabit the planet. An increasing dicey weather pattern and a huge population that is dependent on that weather pattern for the growth of the agriculture needed to feed those people is a recipe for disaster.
     
  8. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,196
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,446
    the higher temps in the other climate optimums didnt cause runaway warming. are you really worried about CO2 or do you just want to find a way to control the climate? I think that the land use parameters of 7 billion people has as much influence on temperature readings as CO2. are you willing to have a draconian crackdown on population as well as on energy use? its cheaper to just move people if the sea level rises, if it ever does dramatically increase as predicted.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    OK. I'll just pick out which chunk of Canada I like best right now. That fine with you?
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,196
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,446
    people on the small percentage of land that is susceptible to ocean rise will either have to move farther inland or build dikes. in the unlikely scenario that rising sea levels increase according to the doomsayers. over decades and centuries. kinda like 'The Mummy', he only gets you if you stop still and scream like an idiot. even then I think sooner or later you would get tired of wet socks and move away.
     

Share This Page