Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7261 - 7280 of total 26397 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 12, 2013 - 01:57pm PT
If CO2 IS the main component of climate change, then WHY in the past has it NOT done the same? Why did arctic ice melt under FAR less CO2?

Why do all the various tests on the fauna FAIL? The "science" said reef fish would flounder under increased CO2 yet the reef fish had other things in mind.

During the ancient times of VERY high CO2 levels, extremely LARGE animals inhabited the planet along with extremely thick and high vegetation and bio mass.


When asked simple questions at the laymans level as i do here, Ed or others will chime in with complex data and mathematical equations of a very technical aspect. Yet those SIMPLE questions go un-answered. Like WHY did the arctic ice melt under FAR LESS CO2 than we see today?

A simple question but a glaringly IMPORTANT one if we are to believe the current science of GW. And remember, we have seen many MILLIONS of dollars go to false flagships such as the spotted owl or polar bear causes that have since been found to be illegitimate, and incorrect in causes-affects and reason.. Once considered the bane of all forest critters, the "clear cuts" of the timber industry have been soundly proven to hold PREFERRED habitat for those owls. Much the same way a clear cut was done on Burnside lake road area- N face of hawkins peak back in 79. Those two clear cut units have since held populations of black bears, pine marten, muke deer and many others including several species of birds. In the case of timber,, a MONO culture is far more damaging than any clear cut. But the propaganda was ALL negative.. Enough to make me wonder.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jun 12, 2013 - 02:01pm PT
Why do you believe that there were higher C02 levels in ancient times? Why do you believe there were large animals roaming the earth in those times? Why do you think there were ice ages?

A nice simple answer will do.

DMT
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 12, 2013 - 02:05pm PT
fossils..of dem bones. of dem lil water creatures plastered to the rock 1000 feet above my present location.
raymond phule

climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 02:06pm PT

Did you guys listen to that presentation from Murray Salby i posted a few days back

I looked at the last 10 minutes but didn't understand what he did when he talked about the integral of the temperature but I am sure that you can help me out.

The first thing I noticed where that he talked about the integral of temperature but the caption for the blue dotted line in the figure was something else. Did he made a mistake with the caption or showed the wrong figure?

The second thing is about the integral of temperature. As you of course know the integral of a signal depends on where you put the zero level for that signal (what base line for the temperature anomaly is used in this case). One implication of this is that it is actually possibly in many cases to choose a zero level (baseline) such that the integral of that signal get a predetermined slope.

So my question is: What baseline did he use when he integrated the temperature and got the almost exact correspondence with the CO2 concentration?
raymond phule

climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 02:17pm PT

If CO2 IS the main component of climate change, then WHY in the past has it NOT done the same? Why did arctic ice melt under FAR less CO2?

Because it is the main component of climate change under the conditions that exist today but other components have been more important during other time periods.

It really shouldn't be that hard to understand that different mechanism can result in similar results.

If you and many more "skeptics" would learn the basics about dynamical systems you really wouldn't ask questions like the one above.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jun 12, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
If CO2 IS the main component of climate change, then WHY in the past has it NOT done the same? Why did arctic ice melt under FAR less CO2?


your question is honest and legitimate

the answer is because the LEVEL of CO2 in MUCH higher NOW than it was in the past, as in the rate of CO2 has accelerated, and we are quite certain the reason is human activity, industry emissions

the protective Ozone layer that shield this planet from the sun has also been thinned and weakened by human emission activity

pretty much everyone agrees we are in a warming period, and that humans had "something" to do with this

one debate at this time is to what degree humans contributed, relevant because IF we can lessen our involvement in the warming period then the obvious conclusion is that we can mitigate to some degree the obvious negative impact this is and will have on earth
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 12, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
Bruce, i havent been given an answer. CO2 has had many ups and downs in the past, NONE of which were contributed to by man. Unless of course your count a few wandering neanderthals and their small camp fires. Those changes occurred due to long range changing of nature, by nature. Those same changing patterns haven't simply "left" the building. Sure, we CAN know that what we do some how adds to the equation, but the amount of affect is WIDELY debated. We cant control or predict Solar activities any more accurately than common weather patterns. Yes the Earth is changing as it always has since time has been a known.

This same mind set of "keeping things as is" was responsible for ignoring Forestry practices. They too thought bitd, that stagnation in a stand was a good thing. They too thought ridding the world of wildfire was the thing to do, but DIDNT think ahead to methods of replacing it. I was in those battles of awarness that were soundly rejected by the scientific research then. Just like i was around when battling issues with that fabled spotted owl,, in the Sierra East side zones LMAO!
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jun 12, 2013 - 03:30pm PT
Bruce, i havent been given an answer. CO2 has had many ups and downs in the past, NONE of which were contributed to by man.

Until the advent of the Industrial Age. And every attempt to lessen pollution has been fought tooth and nail by the polluters, who hate the thought of losing out on a few pennies of profit. Ergo, all this BS about man has no effect on the atmosphere.

Birds don't sh#t in their own nest. How come were not as smart as birds? Werner?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 12, 2013 - 03:59pm PT
Gary,, ive never implied "cleaning " up our act isnt a good idea, and i dont believe any one has. But ive seen many an industry turn out to be pure propaganda and the GW propaganda has affected my industry along with many others under false pretenses like the polar bear for instance, that Canada doesnt even go along with.

And Bruce,,yeah weather prediction is still an ART more than science. For all the computers models in the world, predicting hurricanes or tornadoes, or floods of 100 yr levels are still in the infancy at best. Not ONE forecast in the flood of 97 predicted any such occurrence. Short or long term.
I went into a bar that new years eve wading through 3 feet of fresh snow and came out on new years morning to torrential rains and nary a sign of snow. I reported to work later that am in chest waders. It was 60 some degrees.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:12pm PT
l. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.
References

Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, A. Neftel, and H. Oeschger. 1983. Comparison of CO2 measurements by two laboratories on air from bubbles in polar ice. Nature 303:410-13.
Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius. 1987. Vostok ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2. Nature 329:408-14.
Barnola, J.-M., P. Pimienta, D. Raynaud, and Y.S. Korotkevich. 1991. CO2-climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: A re-examination based on new measurements and on a re-evaluation of the air dating. Tellus 43(B):83- 90.
Delmas, R.J., J.-M. Ascencio, and M. Legrand. 1980. Polar ice evidence that atmospheric CO2 20,000 yr BP was 50% of present. Nature 284:155-57.
Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov, V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987. Vostok ice core: A continuous isotopic temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,000 years). Nature 329:403-8.
Lorius, C., J. Jouzel, C. Ritz, L. Merlivat, N.I. Barkov, Y.S. Korotkevich, and V.M. Kotlyakov. 1985. A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice. Nature 316:591-96.
Neftel, A., H. Oeschger, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, and R. Zumbrunn. 1982. Ice core measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 yr. Nature 295:220-23.
Pepin, L., D. Raynaud, J.-M. Barnola, and M.F. Loutre. 2001. Hemispheric roles of climate forcings during glacial-interglacial transitions as deduced from the Vostok record and LLN-2D model experiments. Journal of Geophysical Research 106 (D23): 31,885-31,892.
Petit, J.R., I. Basile, A. Leruyuet, D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, J. Jouzel, M. Stievenard, V.Y. Lipenkov, N.I. Barkov, B.B. Kudryashov, M. Davis, E. Saltzman, and V. Kotlyakov. 1997. Four climate cycles in Vostok ice core. Nature 387: 359-360.
Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.
Raynaud, D., and J.-M. Barnola. 1985. An Antarctic ice core reveals atmospheric CO2 variations over the past few centuries. Nature 315:309-11.








There Mono. According to those ice core samples deglaciation occurred when CO2 was 1/2 of what it is today.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
Nothing there about the existance of arctic ice there Anderson.

I'll give you a hint again. The minimum age of the perennial arctic ice is considered to be 700K years old and it could be 4 million years old.

This is what you claimed:

if CO2 IS the main component of climate change, then WHY in the past has it NOT done the same? Why did arctic ice melt under FAR less CO2?
raymond phule

climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:20pm PT
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

When you copy and paste something I would suggest that it at least seems that it might agree with what you claim.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:31pm PT
The South pole ice is growing and is nearly identical in CO2 levels and is said to be growing by 2 ppm/pr yr..That doesnt fit well into the GW models.

The age of the Ice itself , even in wikipedia is up to debate, from 700,00 yrs to 4 million.. DOES THAT NOT make one wonder? How such a vast difference of "accepted" studies can be?

Even the EXACT origin of polar bears is a GUESS. Yes they were derived from coastal browines but exaclty how/why/when is conjecture.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:34pm PT
What makes you ask questions with unproven assumptions then wonder why you don't get answers?

If CO2 IS the main component of climate change, then WHY in the past has it NOT done the same? Why did arctic ice melt under FAR less CO2?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:53pm PT
“Our studies show that there have been large fluctuations in the amount of summer sea ice during the last 10,000 years. During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which is absolutely lowest on record. Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada. This is probably due to changes in the prevailing wind systems. This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”



and then this from Wiki about that period....




The Hans Tausen Iskappe (ice cap) in Peary Land (northern Greenland) was drilled in 1977 with a new deep drill to 325 m. The ice core contained distinct melt layers all the way to bedrock indicating that Hans Tausen Iskappe contains no ice from the last glaciation; i.e., the world’s northernmost ice cap melted away during the post-glacial climatic optimum and was rebuilt when the climate got colder some 4000 years ago.[11]




So there. Confirmed , documented and pasted here for your consideration..

This too DOENST fit into GW models very well..
raymond phule

climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:02pm PT
"Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."

From the scientist that you quoted.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:04pm PT
Nothing there about the arctic ice disappearing completely, Anderson in history. There is noise in nearly all data gathered from nature. CO2 and temps fluctuated in the last 10K years, ice melted at different rates correlated to temp. Not sure what you are trying to say, Anderson. Now we are facing something new in man's history, a rapid rise in CO2.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:06pm PT
Just another GW submarine with a screen door Mono..;-)

Much like the TEMP/CO2 spike correlations and which came first and how many years separated them as well.. that too is still being debated in the science communes.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:12pm PT
Yes Bruce, if their was proof of CAGW i would change my mind and apologize even. But their isn't. One little problem you guys have is that CO2 rise follows temperatures as it is liberated from the sinks. Ed is right, Co2 was identified as a greenhouse gas in 1896. What wasn't identified and explained then is the natural negative feedbacks regulating its atmospheric quantity. Without these we would have had a runaway greenhouse effect eons ago.Human emissions are responsible for something like 3% of all atmospheric CO2, the rest is natural and the excess over the last geological epoch will return to its sink by way of natural negative feedbacks-i.e. if as many solar scientists are claiming we are on the start of a solar minima period, the temps will start to decrease and the oceans capacity as a sink will increase. This is testable and confirmable unlike the IPCC sanctioned models which are diverging from observations with increasing frequency.
raymond phule

climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:14pm PT
But Ron's claim is interesting. The sea ice cover where less than 50% compared to the ice cover today but the CO2 level during that time where only at the non man induced maximum level (200 ppm or something like that) and that level is much less than today's man induced level. So the ice melt when the earth is warm and the co2 concentration is high BUT NOT AS HIGH AS TODAY!!!

So I guess that we are safe, ron right as always and the scientist continue with there scam.
Messages 7261 - 7280 of total 26397 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews