Brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

[Old Rocks]

Twenty years ago, when Dr. Hansen first gave his presentation before Congress, much of what we see happening right now was probability. It is now fact.

We, as humans, have only been here about 200,000 years. As Homo, maybe 1.5 million. And we have been affecting the climate by our actions only about 6000 years. However, for the last 150 years, we have been having huge effects on the climate and our environment. Everything from deforestration to changing the composition of the atmosphere.

 

[KittenKoder]

I think this is where he got it wrong, we have had an impact on the ecosystem ... this is indisputable but all species do, and dominant ones will always have the largest impact. Case in point: Dinosaurs.

However, without all science included and without thinking out of the box it is easy to make the assumption that our impact on the environment is more than circumstantial. Here's the box: Environmentalism. If you look at everything with the intent on finding a connection, like miracles, you will see them even when they don't exist. Stepping out of that box you can see that there is no clear definitions of cause and effect yet, and thus taking in what we do know for fact (the climate is changing drastically) we are left with only one logical answer, find a way to survive it unlike all other dominant species who were driven extinct from these same anomalies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Kitten, blue green algea totally changed the composition of the atmosphere about two billion years ago. Living organism have had a major impact on the earth.

 

[edthecynic]

No, by repeatedly posting the same chart while others have demonstrated multiple sources, multiple findings, and posed other larger questions is either a sign of avoiding those and just focusing on the one thing you can prove, or that your evidence isn't based on enough facts to give a bigger picture than that.

So here, one such question I asked, where's the data for the last billion years?

OK, here's your diversionary chart.
Now it's your turn, how does this chart show whether or not we have had warming since 1998?

... and now you confuse the person who asked the question with me, who pointed out why you were never getting any further in the discussion.

Now, if we look at the chart (assuming it's accurate) it appears that the temperatures are still finding a "balance" which each era showing slightly fewer extremes than those previous to them. Now, thinking laterally here is a possibility, that the actual stable temperature is higher than some scientists theorized and that their conclusions are wrong. However, what makes the chart suspect is that the the other highest temps in recent ancient history were at a time that humanity offered almost no pollution as well the many naturally occurring points which rival ours. However this is all based on the assumption that the data is correct, to which we have no hard proof of yet. The problem with looking back is that we start dealing with probabilities more than hard fact.

OK, here's another possibility. If we focus on the last 450,000 years a pattern emerges that suggests that the Little Ice Age should have been the beginning of the overdue Next Ice Age but something upset this natural cycle and we are warming again, whatever the reason.

 

[KittenKoder]

Kitten, blue green algea totally changed the composition of the atmosphere about two billion years ago. Living organism have had a major impact on the earth.

Yet this was natural, part of nature, it wasn't something that should not have happened, it was something that improved the viability of life forms on the planet. Again, the big picture.

 

[KittenKoder]

OK, here's your diversionary chart.
Now it's your turn, how does this chart show whether or not we have had warming since 1998?

... and now you confuse the person who asked the question with me, who pointed out why you were never getting any further in the discussion.

Now, if we look at the chart (assuming it's accurate) it appears that the temperatures are still finding a "balance" which each era showing slightly fewer extremes than those previous to them. Now, thinking laterally here is a possibility, that the actual stable temperature is higher than some scientists theorized and that their conclusions are wrong. However, what makes the chart suspect is that the the other highest temps in recent ancient history were at a time that humanity offered almost no pollution as well the many naturally occurring points which rival ours. However this is all based on the assumption that the data is correct, to which we have no hard proof of yet. The problem with looking back is that we start dealing with probabilities more than hard fact.

OK, here's another possibility. If we focus on the last 450,000 years a pattern emerges that suggests that the Little Ice Age should have been the beginning of the overdue Next Ice Age but something upset this natural cycle and we are warming again, whatever the reason.

I don't follow how you get that the cycle is interrupted at all. It looks like it all still fits.

 

[edthecynic]

... and now you confuse the person who asked the question with me, who pointed out why you were never getting any further in the discussion.

Now, if we look at the chart (assuming it's accurate) it appears that the temperatures are still finding a "balance" which each era showing slightly fewer extremes than those previous to them. Now, thinking laterally here is a possibility, that the actual stable temperature is higher than some scientists theorized and that their conclusions are wrong. However, what makes the chart suspect is that the the other highest temps in recent ancient history were at a time that humanity offered almost no pollution as well the many naturally occurring points which rival ours. However this is all based on the assumption that the data is correct, to which we have no hard proof of yet. The problem with looking back is that we start dealing with probabilities more than hard fact.

OK, here's another possibility. If we focus on the last 450,000 years a pattern emerges that suggests that the Little Ice Age should have been the beginning of the overdue Next Ice Age but something upset this natural cycle and we are warming again, whatever the reason.

I don't follow how you get that the cycle is interrupted at all. It looks like it all still fits.

The other interglacial warm periods were under 10,000 years so the Little Ice Age seems to fit that cycle as the next ice age. But we are warming again for 100 years which seems not to fit the cycle. The current interglacial warm period is now 12,000 years.
Now I can see arguing about the cause of the warming, but deniers will claim we ARE cooling rather than warming.

 

[KittenKoder]

OK, here's another possibility. If we focus on the last 450,000 years a pattern emerges that suggests that the Little Ice Age should have been the beginning of the overdue Next Ice Age but something upset this natural cycle and we are warming again, whatever the reason.

I don't follow how you get that the cycle is interrupted at all. It looks like it all still fits.

The other interglacial warm periods were under 10,000 years so the Little Ice Age seems to fit that cycle as the next ice age. But we are warming again for 100 years which seems not to fit the cycle. The current interglacial warm period is now 12,000 years.
Now I can see arguing about the cause of the warming, but deniers will claim we ARE cooling rather than warming.

Explain why the "ice ages" are so hugely important, they would be just as drastic as an "erratic warming" and cause just as much damage, just in a different direction, so if that is your contention then we just dodged a bullet.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't follow how you get that the cycle is interrupted at all. It looks like it all still fits.

The other interglacial warm periods were under 10,000 years so the Little Ice Age seems to fit that cycle as the next ice age. But we are warming again for 100 years which seems not to fit the cycle. The current interglacial warm period is now 12,000 years.
Now I can see arguing about the cause of the warming, but deniers will claim we ARE cooling rather than warming.

Explain why the "ice ages" are so hugely important, they would be just as drastic as an "erratic warming" and cause just as much damage, just in a different direction, so if that is your contention then we just dodged a bullet.

As long as the warming isn't running away out of control, yes I think we dodged a bullet. But if the warming accelerates too fast we could be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

 

[KittenKoder]

However it continually dips and becomes less drastic, as shown by your own graphs and data. So if we did interfere with the natural cycle, we may have just saved our own asses. Welcome to ... outside the box.

 

[Chris]

The Lower 48 is about 2% of the worlds surface. In 1934, we had a very warm year, yet the rest of the world did not. We had a cool 2008, yet, for the world, 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest on record.

 

[American Horse]

Here's a link to a chart showing Sunspot Activity correlated with global
climate change going back 7,500 years with the data collected from ice
cores, tree rings, and historical records.
7,500 YEAR CHART
CHART LEGEND

OK, that was a link to the chart. What is the source of the chart?

I'm Glad you asked, Oldrocks. This information (Chart and Legend) are from Astronomy
Magazine long before Global Warming was thought to be an issue, back in
February of 1981. That alone should lend credence to the following
information. Here is something I wrote earlier on the subject of Global
Warming or Climate Change for another forum. I did not post the chart and
data because of the amount of space they take up on the forum page, like
for instance what the image/chart just above this post did to the window
we're looking at right now. But a quote-to-reply could be generated by
anyone interested and then preview them next to each other on this page for
a quick review of the chart and data juxtaposed.

Here's what I wrote earlier on this subject explaining the chart and its source
and the scientists (Astronomers) involved:

"I have a feeling, that before too long we’ll understand, or at least accept a
lot more about global climate change than now, and it won’t be about
warming. Many regions of the world would benefit from some warming. But
the greatest threat all along has been from cooling. Let me be clear here, I
do not mean to imply that we don’t need to be cautious about what we put
into the atmosphere. However what is now known as the Maunder Minimum
(MM) should’ve told us something about the possibilities for the future.

The MM is often described as comprising a period of time of about a century,
but in fact the entire period of minimized solar activity included a well
defined period of at least 300 years, but from beginning to end climate was
changed for at least 500 years (1320 to 1850). We have just reached a
recovery peak of warming from that solar induced cooling. In climate, after
every high, predictably comes a low, and that low will effect more lives than
a beneficent warming period ever had.

The MM began with a precipitous drop of sunspot activity about 1320
followed by a drop in carbon-14 in the archeological record about 1350.
Sunspot activity didn’t experience an upswing until about 1720, and hadn’t
reached the earlier high until about 1880. Carbon-14 rose above average
levels again in about 1850. The recovery curve for sunspot activity is still a
positive one and has only passed the earlier high (of about 1290) at about
1975 when then the curve exceeded the earlier high. The last MM wasn’t
the first, it was simply the most recent. The last three have been from low
to low running about seven centuries. The last low was about 1400 with a
small increase and another dip about 1630. Once a low point is reached the
climate is deep into a very cold climactic period.

Here is some information on Carbon14 from an article appearing in Astronomy
Magazine October 1987) “The telling factor is carbon 14, a radioactive
isotope of normal carbon that is produced in the upper atmosphere when
cosmic rays strike nitrogen atoms. But normal carbon and carbon-14 atoms
descend to the surface, where they are absorbed by trees, however, the
amount of carbon 14 absorbed by trees; each year is regulated by solar
activity. During periods of high solar activity the extended solar magnetic
field blocks incoming cosmic rays, which causes less carbon 14 to be
produced. Thus, high levels of carbon 14 in a tree ring of a particular period
indicate the Sun was quiescent for that period.”

Finally some background on an earlier February 1981 article in Astronomy
Magazine. The subject was titled “The Case of the Missing Sunspots” (by
Mary Martin DeLancy), and the premise was that scientists had up to that
time (1981) believed the sun to be stable, and unchanging. However,
information, some recorded in tree rings, some in ice cores in Antarctica, and
some in astronomical observations recorded by reliable sources give us some
insight into that premise, showing it to be incorrect.

An astronomer named Walter Maunder discovered, through his research that
there had been long periods of reduced sunspot activity in the past. After
completing his work he presented it in a paper titled “A Prolonged Sunspot
Minimum” in 1894. In it he argued unsuccessfully that the sun behaved
strangely between the 17th and 18th centuries.

Thirty years later he tried again with more evidence, but still unsuccessfully.
Then his work lay unread and neglected, left to others to build on and to
develop a whole new theory of the sun’s variable nature. Fifty more years
pass until an astronomer named John Eddy again became interested in the
subject, and with a better understanding of solar physics, and more recently
compiled records of astronomical observations, he tackled Maunder’s
evidence.

Eddy had originally set out to disprove any variability in the nature of the
sun’s activity, but he began to question his original goal when the evidence
from Maunder and other astronomers came more to light. He began to refer
to the period as the “Maunder Minimum”.

Eddy and two of his associates at HAO (High Altitude Observer) - Peter
Gilman and Dorothy Trotter, used this information to determine the solar
rotation speed at different points in time. The resulting figures indicate an
increased rate of rotation near the Sun’s equator just before the onset of the
Maunder Minimum. How did this change relate to the disappearance of
sunspots? That question and many others were just beginning to be
investigated.

Peter Gilman recently gave his own perspective on Eddy’s research. “The
Maunder Minimum had a big impact.” He said. “It was the primary reason
for [my] going into solar variability. There must be 25-50 scientists who are
doing something different now as a result of their work, more if
you count the Tree Ring People.” Again, that was just before 1981,
preceding the climate change controversy by almost 20 years. The quoted
Astronomy magazine article was not one with a political bent, but
instead one on the astronomical study of our nearest star which,
climatologically, has some direct bearing on conditions on earth.

Now to counter the abbreviated chart quoted above (ommitted here) here
is a full chart showing about Seventy Five Centuries of solar activity and
temperatures
"75 CENTURY CHART"
(sorry the chart is too large to show here without distending the other
text - once there click to magnify)

and the corresponding "LEGEND" with which to interpret it.

The full chart shows these minima and maxima in a long graphic view over a
period of time into the past, and shows a regularity of cycles we aren’t
often given a view of. What is clear is that the current warm period is not
the first, nor is it the most extreme. Also it suggests something about the
future. The patterns are revealing to say the least."

 

[Old Rocks]

A very good article, Horse. If we are entering a Maunder Minimum it would be a Godsend. For we would have time to clean up our act. Given the amount of GHGs now present in our atmosphere, I doubt that it would be a damaging cold period.

A rapid descent into a cold climate would be just as damaging as a rapid warming. Any adrupt climate change disrupts normal cycles. With about 7 billion humans on Earth, that disruption would spell major misery and death for millions, if not a couple of billion.

 

[American Horse]

A very good article, Horse. If we are entering a Maunder
Minimum it would be a Godsend. For we would have time to clean up our act. Given
the amount of GHGs now present in our atmosphere, I doubt that it would be a damaging
cold period.

A rapid descent into a cold climate would be just as damaging as a rapid warming. Any
abrupt climate change disrupts normal cycles. With about 7 billion humans on Earth, that
disruption would spell major misery and death for millions, if not a couple of billion.

I think you are right about the numbers. As for cold climate it doesn't look so bad until you
consider that all of Canada and Northern Europe and Asia was, and no doubt will be
again, under ice:

Extent of Laurentine and Scandinavian Ice Sheets during last Ice Age (lasting until) 12,000
years B.P. when they began their retreat.

There is the chance that AGW might prevent another ice age within the next millenia.
Changes going into ice ages are abrupt, as is the change coming out. The cause of the
clearing of the last Ice Age cleared all ice over North America in only a few thousand
years. But the event that began that retreat, considering the hold the ice and chill had
over the planet, must have been huge or a combination of huge events.

One is inclined to strongly consider astronomical causes. The clear cyclical nature of
interglacials as a part of an overarching phenomenon of ice ages suggests something
far greater than a terrestrial event like volcanoes for instance. The arrangement of the
continents and mountain ranges caused by "plate tectonics" played a role, but at the
beginning of the whole ice cycle rather than any recent influence of interglacials and
ice ages.


From Planet Earth Series (1983) - ICE AGES:
"There can be little doubt that the glaciers of the Ice Age will return. The four previous
interglacials lasted between 8,000 and 12,000 years, and the present one, called the
Holocene, has already lasted a little longer than 10,000 years.

These figutres amount to a clear warning, but their predictive value should not be
overestimated. Andre Berger, a leading theoretician of celestial mechanics who has
calculated in painstaking detail the variations in the earth's orbit during the past million
years and for 60,000 years to come, has concluded that, if the progression continues as
it did during the Pleistocene, the earth will be well into an ice age between 3,000 and
7,000 years from now. On the other hand, the early stages of climatic cooling could
begin much sooner; the British climatologist Hubert Lamb has said that pronounced
cooling within the next two centuries is not out of the question."

 

[Sinatra]

A very good article, Horse. If we are entering a Maunder
Minimum it would be a Godsend. For we would have time to clean up our act. Given
the amount of GHGs now present in our atmosphere, I doubt that it would be a damaging
cold period.

A rapid descent into a cold climate would be just as damaging as a rapid warming. Any
abrupt climate change disrupts normal cycles. With about 7 billion humans on Earth, that
disruption would spell major misery and death for millions, if not a couple of billion.

I think you are right about the numbers. As for cold climate it doesn't look so bad until you
consider that all of Canada and Northern Europe and Asia was, and no doubt will be
again, under ice:

Extent of Laurentine and Scandinavian Ice Sheets during last Ice Age (lasting until) 12,000
years B.P. when they began their retreat.

There is the chance that AGW might prevent another ice age within the next millenia.
Changes going into ice ages are abrupt, as is the change coming out. The cause of the
clearing of the last Ice Age cleared all ice over North America in only a few thousand
years. But the event that began that retreat, considering the hold the ice and chill had
over the planet, must have been huge or a combination of huge events.

One is inclined to strongly consider astronomical causes. The clear cyclical nature of
interglacials as a part of an overarching phenomenon of ice ages suggests something
far greater than a terrestrial event like volcanoes for instance. The arrangement of the
continents and mountain ranges caused by "plate tectonics" played a role, but at the
beginning of the whole ice cycle rather than any recent influence of interglacials and
ice ages.


From Planet Earth Series (1983) - ICE AGES:
"There can be little doubt that the glaciers of the Ice Age will return. The four previous
interglacials lasted between 8,000 and 12,000 years, and the present one, called the
Holocene, has already lasted a little longer than 10,000 years.

These figutres amount to a clear warning, but their predictive value should not be
overestimated. Andre Berger, a leading theoretician of celestial mechanics who has
calculated in painstaking detail the variations in the earth's orbit during the past million
years and for 60,000 years to come, has concluded that, if the progression continues as
it did during the Pleistocene, the earth will be well into an ice age between 3,000 and
7,000 years from now. On the other hand, the early stages of climatic cooling could
begin much sooner; the British climatologist Hubert Lamb has said that pronounced
cooling within the next two centuries is not out of the question."

Yes - and global cooling would have a far more negative impact than the marginal warming that the alarmists have been dragging out repeatedly for the last 20 years...

 

[Sinatra]

And let's not forget the oceans are apparently not fully cooperating with the "warming" game plan.

They have been in temperature decline for nearly a decade now...


Baltimore Weather Examiner: Oceans are cooling according to NASA

 

[Sinatra]

And let's not forget the oceans are apparently not fully cooperating with the "warming" game plan.

They have been in temperature decline for nearly a decade now...


Baltimore Weather Examiner: Oceans are cooling according to NASA

,,,

 

[k2skier]

And let's not forget the oceans are apparently not fully cooperating with the "warming" game plan.

They have been in temperature decline for nearly a decade now...


Baltimore Weather Examiner: Oceans are cooling according to NASA

Could the melting ice have an impact on this? I love the La Nina's, Mt Hood has had a great snow pack the last 2 years, I can only hope for global cooling.

The only time this planet has been "hot" was before it cooled off for the first time in it's adolescence, since that it's fluctuated from frozen to temped, if we warm too much too quickly we could reach a tipping point that's irreversible (but some models show that could throw us back into another ice age). The only thing for sure about our dynamic weather on our planet is that is will never stay constant.

 

[k2skier]

how is a sample of roughly 100 years significant when discussing a 6 billion year old entity?

Because this is when the industrial revolution occurred and it is impacting us now, and possibly in the future.

Ice core samples tell us a lot about the climate, much longer than 100 years, but it isn't conclusive, just another factor in the many to look at.

here's a thought; maybe dinosaur flatulence killed them off and it wasn't a comet

One of those dinosaur guys pointed out that at the layer of iridium, there are no dinosaur fossils. He said that if the big rock was what killed the dinos, this layer should be thick with fossils and yet there are none.

He concluded that they must all have been dead prior to the impact.

See! Their flatulence created too much methane and they died from climate change, I knew it, lol.

 

[Sinatra]

Melting ice is not cooling the earth's oceans - though that is being spun by the global warmers as a possible explanation.

Fact is, the global warming models are already irrelevant under the facts of stagnant/cooling temperatures for the past decade. Of course, these same global warmers are now warning that while the earth might in fact cool for the next 20-30 years, it will get real warm after that!

And now the Obama administration is considering putting pollutants into the atmosphere to cool the earth - the very type of pollutants we have spent the last 30 years helping to eliminate from the atmosphere...thus the parodixical madness of the global warming industrial complex...