Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10821 - 10840 of total 21542 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 24, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
Amazed that some think CYCLES arent part of this world. EVERYTHING cycles. Fish, birds, lakes and weather. Climate has cycled up and down since time began. Lakes go from clear to green and back to clear. ALL by themselves.

But somehow AGW types think this is disturbing news. Granted man has added some pollutants to the mix. BUt what would CO2 and temps be doing right now if man had never industrialized himself? I would imagine it would be close to the same. Natural occurrence was to blame for every spike in history up to the industrial revolution. So now we just assume man is to blame for all of it now eh..
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:06pm PT
I had not had my coffee and I was off by an order of magnitude. Chuff already posted it.

I deleted it because my math sucked. You could delete a bunch of posts for the same reason.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:07pm PT
Yes, the rock record is filled with cycles of high and low sea level stands, and the only way to do that globally is by accumulating and melting sea ice.

In sequence stratigraphy, these fit the milankovitch cycles. However right now we aren't in a warming part of those cycles.

Petroleum geologists work these cycles like crazy. They control the distribution of reservoir rocks for oil and gas.

There is a good wiki page on it, but for our use, these words are important:

These alternating high and low sea level stands repeat at several time scales. The smallest of these cycles is approximately 20,000 years, and corresponds to the rate of precession of the Earth's rotational axis (see Milankovitch cycles) and are commonly referred to as '5th order' cycles. The next larger cycle ('4th order') is about 40,000 years and approximately matches the rate at which the Earth's inclination to the Sun varies (again explained by Milankovitch). The next larger cycle ('3rd order') is about 110,000 years and corresponds to the rate at which the Earth's orbit oscillates from elliptical to circular. Lower order cycles are recognized, which seem to result from plate tectonic events like the opening of new ocean basins by splitting continental masses.

Hundreds of similar glacial cycles have occurred throughout the Earth's history. The earth scientists who study the positions of coastal sediment deposits through time ("sequence stratigraphers") have noted dozens of similar basinward shifts of shorelines associated with a later recovery. The largest of these sedimentary cycles can in some cases be correlated around the world with great confidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_stratigraphy

raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:09pm PT
I see. Since level 7 explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming, any paper that implies humans are causing warming (without clarifying how much warming or minimizing the human impact) should be interpreted as saying humans are causing at least 50% of the warming.

You should use global warming instead of warming in what you write. If that the case I would think so.



Since you have been relying on the abstract and not the actual paper
I have been relying on the paper.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:23pm PT
Pangea was breaking up in the Mesozoic. The rifting led to a massive amount of volcanism, and the high CO2 from that led to a worldwide hothouse event. Sea level was high enough that during the Cretaceous, there was a north-south seaway across the north American plate.

How do we know this? Because there is a pile of Cretaceous marine sediments there.

If you want to understand past cycles, you really need to do a little googling on "sequence stratigraphy," Milankovitch Cycles," Cretaceous Hothouse"

That should get you started. It will be pretty hard for us to increase the CO2 content up to Cretaceous levels, but if we burn all of our fossil fuel deposits, that should get us close.

You also need to read up on "Ocean Acidification," "Global Anoxic Events," and a reconstructed CO2 concentration curve through deep time. Back to the Permian, at least.

Here is one on reconstructing the global CO2 concentration curve using leaf stomata. It is interesting.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/GSA_Paper.pdf


Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:24pm PT
On the coast not far from here you can find these tortured metamorphic rocks that record collisions then separations between Europe and North America plates. A ways inland, the Connecticut River Valley contains remnants of two volcanic island chains that were formerly oceanic.

My front yard, literally, was at one time a place where the Laurentide Ice Sheet formed a cliff calving into the Atlantic. On a summer day I like to sit on the patio and imagine that scene.

Ron's and Dave729's declarations of what scientists do or don't believe regarding climate change and cycles are complete fantasies mainly proving they don't read.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:29pm PT
We have a lot of paleo evidence. It is just a matter of culling it all in and seeing if there is a correlation between CO2 levels and sea level rise and fall in the past.

As stated above, current geological theory blames most of this on orbital forcing. This is fairly new, though. Ten or 15 years old.

We do know that the Cretaceous event was CO2 forced, though. We are pretty certain, anyway. CO2 levels were through the roof, and dinosaurs lived in the arctic.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:30pm PT
Climate change cycles a FANTASY? hmmmmmm...


Ok Chiloe, what is wrong in my statement. CO2 and temps have indeed gone up and down ALL BY THEMSELVES in the past. Due to ONLY natural occurrence.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
[Message removed because I'm not a jerk]
raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:41pm PT

Amazed that some think CYCLES arent part of this world.

I am more amazed that someone think that "some think that CYCLES aren't part of this world.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:50pm PT
Here's your fantasy, Ron. It's false and you just flat made it up, but you read nothing so you don't even know when you're doing that.

Amazed that some think CYCLES arent part of this world.
...
But somehow AGW types think this is disturbing news.


So far as I know, no scientist anywhere ever claimed that "cycles aren't part of this world."
The existence of cycles is not news to anyone except maybe the "AGW types" cartoon dancing in your head.
No scientist in real life finds the concept of cycles disturbing.

Base just gave some examples, did it cross your mind that here's an "AGW type" whose expertise includes cycles?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 24, 2013 - 04:12pm PT
Relevant to recent discussions, this just out in the Journal of Geophysical Research (emphasis added):

Unprecedented recent summer warmth in Arctic Canada

Arctic air temperatures have increased in recent decades, along with documented reductions in sea ice, glacier size, and snowcover. However, the extent to which recent Arctic warming has been anomalous with respect to long-term natural climate variability remains uncertain. Here we use 145 radiocarbon dates on rooted tundra plants revealed by receding cold-based ice caps in the Eastern Canadian Arctic to show that 5000 years of regional summertime cooling has been reversed, with average summer temperatures of the last ~100 years now higher than during any century in more than 44,000 years, including peak warmth of the early Holocene when high latitude summer insolation was 9% greater than present. Reconstructed changes in snow line elevation suggest that summers cooled ~2.7 C over the past 5000 years, approximately twice the response predicted by CMIP5 climate models. Our results indicate that anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases have led to unprecedented regional warmth.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2013 - 04:14pm PT

Warming = most of the warming

Got it.

Nice display of critical thinking.

You really try to misrepresent a lot of what I write.

I would say that:
cause of global warming =cause of most of the global warming
in most discussion. The default understanding usually implies a most or main (cause).

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 24, 2013 - 04:20pm PT
Chiloe, why do they only go back 44,000 yrs for that study. A little trick to enhance that position perhaps?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 24, 2013 - 04:33pm PT
Chiloe, why do they only go back 44,000 yrs for that study.

By itself, that's a reasonable question, and of course it is answered in the paper.

The ancient rooted plants emerging beneath the four ice caps must have been continuously ice-covered for at least 44 ka. However, because the oldest dates are near the limit of the radiocarbon age scale, substantially older ages are possible. Based on temperature reconstructions for ice cores retrieved from the nearby Greenland Ice Sheet [Members, 2004], the youngest time interval during which summer temperatures were plausibly as warm as present prior to 44 ka is ~120 ka, at, or near the end of the Last Interglaciation. We suggest this is the most likely age of these samples. Regardless of the absolute age uncertainties, it remains clear that these four ice caps did not melt behind our collection sites at any time during the Holocene, but did do so recently, indicating that summer warmth of recent decades exceeded that of any interval of comparable length in >44 ka.

But Ron doesn't wait for a real answer, his politics supply a made-up one and he's off into fantasyland.

A little trick to enhance that position perhaps?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 24, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
Thanks.. That is exactly what i was after.;-)



"suggests" and "uncertainties"..
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Oct 24, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
the limits of radio carbon dating only exist to enhance the AGW position. So Rong is right.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 24, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
Still in fantasyland, Ron, too deep to find your way out.

Plainly you can't read, but if you could you would grasp that the "uncertainty" mentioned is whether the oldest plants are 44,000 or 120,000 years old. They chose 44,000 as the lower bound so their statements would be most conservative: unprecedented in at least 44,000 years. Exactly opposite to Ron's bizarro fantasy about their motives.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 24, 2013 - 04:47pm PT
Well if we are to base our futures on these studies, accuracy to me is everything. And then theres that pesky fact that AK has had a COOLER summer, and sea ice has rebounded for the previous four years of lows in one single year. And how about the temps NOT following CO2 as it did in the past.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Oct 24, 2013 - 04:55pm PT
accuracy to me is everything.

And Reily, that image isn't helping. Fight the good fight. Facts, not sh#t-slinging, K?
Messages 10821 - 10840 of total 21542 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews