Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7541 - 7560 of total 28358 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 12:05pm PT


420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Man-Made
Share


420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Man-Made
February 8, 2013 by Joe Martino
The global warming debate is one of the biggest topics of the last few years. It makes it’s way into the political, financial, environmental, entertainment and social arena. While it appears as though the verdict is in and we are in fact responsible for the recent warming, we must take the time to really look at all the possibilities here.

Note: Please read the whole thing through before drawing conclusions.

What will be presented in this article is an in depth look at data from research done at the Vostok station in the Antarctic. Hardly new data, it still remains more of a quiet topic as it without a doubt diminishes the importance we put on man being responsible for global warming. The research was done over many years by a group of Russian and French scientists. Why it is important to know who did this research is because we can better remove the potential bias due to financial or political gain. Before we jump into the data, I want to make it clear that this is not false data, made up or hypothetical, it is very real. One final note, when it comes to the treatment of our environment I will be the first to say that I do not agree with the use of harsh chemicals, fossil fuels, clear cutting, dumping, toxic waste disposal, etc. I know that what we are doing to our environment is a serious issue, but is very overlooked due to the attention and distraction global warming creates. We need to change our ways, but global warming is not the biggest issue.



Vostok Data
The Vostok ice core sample was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok to a depth of 3623m. The graph built from the Vostok ice core data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Contrary to current belief today, the Vostok data shows us that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This means that CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperatures, although it might potentially play a small role. This cannot be confirmed at this time however. The Vostok graph also shows us the cyclical pattern that occurs with warming and cooling as well as the increase in CO2 levels. The graph below indicates the approximate 110,000 year cycles that took place over the past 420,000 years, in which there is a clear relationship between higher temperatures and increased CO2.



Green line indicates CO2. Blue line indicates temperature. Red line indicates dust.

From this data we may question why the fall of CO2 after that fall in temperature? The reason is that cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. We see this if we were to leave fizzy beverages out in warm weather, it would lose its carbonation quickly. In nature terms, when the temperatures are cooler, the ocean water is able to hold much more CO2. As the temperature warms, CO2 is released into the atmosphere, hence the increase in CO2 levels during warmer periods in time.

What is very important to take from this data is that the rise and fall of global temperatures and the rise and fall of CO2 emissions is a completely natural cycle that the planet has gone through on many occasions. We can see that all increases and decreases correlate directly with the Ice Age minimus and maximus as shown in the graphs. This process has been happening for the past 420,000 years according to the data collected at Vostok. Also note the fact that the temperatures of today and the CO2 emissions of today are relative to previous peaks that occurred in the past. It is fair to say that 150 years ago we did not have the same level of industry and CO2 emissions as we do today, never mind 100,000 or 200,000 years ago. This tells us that regardless of the CO2 emissions we have sent into the atmosphere, it is not adding a great deal nor is it causing the warming.

It is believed that there is about 800 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and human activities release about another 27 billion tonnes per year, or 3% of the total. What is important to note is that CO2 in the air dissolves into the oceans and there is a lot more in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere. CO2 in the oceans is slowly gathered by limestone, chalk and other rocks. More than 100 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is locked up in these stones (The White Cliffs of Dover are largely responsible for sequestering CO2). How much CO2 that goes to the ocean versus into the atmosphere is not understood at this point. So regardless of the 3% of total emissions that humanity creates, it is very likely that a large portion of it doesn’t even make it to the atmosphere. Even if one were to assume that man is contributing large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, it will dissolve in the sea and then turn to limestone without any help from us. CO2 contributes 9% of the greenhouse effect. Industry currently pumps 3% more CO2 into the atmosphere each year, which is only responsible for a total of .27% of the greenhouse effect. The reality this creates is that if we were to cease all transport and industry right now, it is very unrealistic to assume that it would have any impact on global warming. Since this cannot be stated as fact, we can leave this point open to possibility. However it is important to note that the claims made by major pushers of global warming greatly rely on the assumption that humanity’s small addition to the CO2 levels is what is going to push warming beyond a point of return. As you can see from the previous data, this assumption is not backed nor sound.

The graph below shows the sources of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.


If we look to roughly 325,000 years ago, based on the Vostok data above, we see that Earth was at the peak of a warm interglacial period. At that time, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Currently, we are again at the peak and near end of a warm interglacial. Based on the cycle, it would suggest that we are heading into another Ice Age period of cooling where global temperatures will drop and ice will again form heavily at the poles.

The fact of the matter is, while the world is focused on anthropogenic global warming, warming induced by humans, what could potentially be a more serious and real matter is that of the coming ice age as the cycle suggests. 420,000 years of data has proven to us that we are not going to see a constant warming of the planet and that we are near the very end of a warming cycle -yet we seem stuck in the idea that we are about to cease our existence due to global warming. At this point, the data should speak for itself and completely nullify any belief that global warming is induced by humans, and that CO2 is the cause. We see very clearly that CO2 lags the temperature increases and has done so many times.

Problems With Current Belief
At this point we may wonder how could organizations studying global warming miss data like this? How could Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize for his film? How can the IPCC continue to push global warming if this data explains everything? The reality is that most of what is presented from those sources is more political than it is anything else. The science that they use to draw claims relies on a belief that substantial global warming is critically dependent on the assumption that the climate system never changes by itself naturally. This, as we know from the Vostok data, is false. Drawing this conclusion negates what the IPCC and Al Gore claim regarding global warming, CO2 being the cause and that humans are responsible.

Politically and financially, the western world has a lot to gain if they can push the world to believe global warming is seriously the cause of humans. This allows them to heavily tax other countries who are producing large amounts of goods at low costs like China and India. Forcing them to increase their costs would create a more level playing field for western countries who currently have increased costs due to the demand for higher wages.

We must also take into consideration the simple fact of uncontrolled human ego. Many scientists today have built a great deal of wealth and status over their claims and assumptions on global warming. Some of them have built complete careers around the belief and any threat to what they have done is not simply an acceptance of new science but also an admittance that there previous belief was incorrect. For many, this is not easy to face when so much has been built. Global warming is hardly the one and only area of study that new science has proven incorrect, yet it still remains due to the lack of open minded and ego-less scientists.

There have also been many scientists in the field who have lost their positions in credible companies, lost credibility within the field and have been shut down due to their understanding on the truth about global warming. This keeps a lot of scientists who know the truth very quiet.

Is global warming at all caused by man? This cannot be substantiated at this point and given the negligible contribution from humans, it would be difficult to say we play a big role, if any, but the verdict is still out that we may contribute in some way.

A Few Added Key Points

1. Four times in the period, (ie, roughly every 100,000 years) the temperature has quickly shot up to 2°C – 3°C above today’s and then slowly slipped back to about 8°C below today’s temperature. It looks as though the Earth’s non-linear climate system has two stable states and flops rhythmically from one to the other.

2. We are currently at the top of a cycle and an ice-age seems to be in our near future. It is important to note that comparing today’s position with the 4 previous peaks, the temperature should have reached 2°C or more some 10,000 years ago, but it hasn’t. If anything, the world is now somewhat colder than what we might have expected.

3. CO2 and temperature correlate to each other very well based on the data well. When temperature goes up, so does CO2. When temperature drops, so does CO2. CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 800-1000 years.
4. We normally think that causes come first and consequences come after. Hence the belief that CO2 creates the temperature increase. Looking over long periods in this data, it is temperature that comes first and by a thousand years or so (except for a short period about 340,000 years ago). Al Gore seems to overlook this important detail in his film.
5. Global Warming is an area of science where experiments are very hard to perform, but nature has given us 4 repetitions to show us what we might expect. The Vostok core clearly indicates that when the temperature reaches 2°C a mechanism kicks in which sets the temperature falling again and initiates an ice-age. Since this mechanism has repeatedly worked well after 100,000 years of disuse, it seems to be an expected cycle.
6. We know that the sun and its increased/ prolonged radiation over the past years is a very big driving force of global wamring right now. We also know that when heated, greenhouse gases become lighter and ascend into the atmosphere only to give absorbed heat away. We don’t know what happens next and science has not substantiated this. I do recognize the importance of addressing the possibility of global warming being caused by humans. But the fact is, we do not know that CO2 causes it. We do not know if the negligible amounts of CO2 we create can even have an impact on warming either. These are all assumptions at this point. Solar radiation appears to be the number one cause. Natural cycles would probably be number 2. Beyond that it is difficult to say because we cannot perform scientific experiments very easily.
6. One final fact that is very often overlooked is that the amount of heat radiated by the earth into space varies as the fourth power of the absolute temperature. Simply put, if we see an increase of 1.4% in radiated energy, we see a strong stabilizing effect on global temperatures. (If the average temperature of the atmosphere rises from 20C to 21C (293K to 294K or .3%), the radiated energy increases by 1.4%.)
Sources:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-1/
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/labs/Lab10_Vostok/Vostok.htm
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 31, 2013 - 12:18pm PT
hey Rick

you Wasilla yahoo

explain exactly how the "data was manipulated"

prove your sh!t, Rick

OR apologize for lying
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 31, 2013 - 12:19pm PT
Oh, i forgot about you Bruce. I think we covered all this in our resounding defeat of your religiuos CAGW beliefs, but to reiterate.
1.Yes AGW is a fact. As Ed said, a rather feeble signal compared to natural variability.If you think that billions and billions of multi ton eating machines known as dinosaurs didn't influence the planet then obviously you were not at the tail end of their methane release.
2. Intuition is what people like Darwin, Einstein,Dyson,Lindzen etc. share, that along with the ability to share it through the language of science.Prejudice is the trait that your CAGW religion shares with many religions and political systems on this planet-the inflexible belief they are the chosen people and the sole recipients of the divine truths.
3. See above. If competing beliefs conflict with their view of the world, as the chosen people, then it must obviously be wrong in their minds
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
you Rick are an intellectual coward.


by anyones understanding, you avoided answering the questions stated.

You did so intentionally.

You display cowardice.


Pardon me! It may be said that in answer to question 3 your reply was direct. However, could you explain in detail your reference to "see above"? What is that in reference to?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 31, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
well Ed,

I understand your call for me to be more civil, and not call rick a liar for saying the date is manipulated

I don't feel my use of the word liar is inappropriate here as when someone intentionally says something they know to be untrue then they are a "liar"

I believe in calling out liars, for lots and lots of reasons
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 12:40pm PT
gee guys,, Ed calls for civility and then the next three posts in a row are pure crapola.. Even Ed slides in the subtle "cut"...


Gw submarine has a screen door,, burble burble gurgle...
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 12:46pm PT
quite the contrary Ron. I make observations which i can substantiate. Furthermore, when i recognize it, I offer apology for my misunderstanding. I am being civil.

I reitierate, my assertion of cowardice is I believe warranted. I don't mind being proven wrong.


For instance, perhaps Ricks inability to directly and succinctly address my questions can be explained another way, other than cowardice. Perhaps he chose to answer the question without adequately understanding them, but then I'm not sure how I can state them any simpler.

Which makes me wonder how he finds himself capable of answering questions of science.


for your reference:




1) If you were to be presented with solid evidence that AGW was a fact, would you change your mind? A simple yes or no answer is acceptable for now.

2) Can you explain how we differentiate between Intuition and prejudice? Is this relevant to the role of intuition in judgement?

3) Why exactly is there a strong trend within some organized religions to oppose AGW theory?


In an attempt to clarify further, I offer this:

In reference to question 1, I assert that AGW is the primary force. But as anyone can figure my question is more rhetorical. It has do do with if you have any belief at all and are presented with evidence to refute it, can you change you mind. I think most people could see my intent.


In reference to question 2, I'm not particularly asking for definitions. I want to know how anyone when presented with an opportunity to judge based on intuition, can be sure that what they percieve as intuition is not actually prejudice.


In reference to question 3, Rick may have identified the role of religious belief in judging AGW, but he appears to reference it to some previous observations of his. What are they and what is the relevance?
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 31, 2013 - 12:56pm PT
Ron Anderson ≠ Sarah Palin
but ...
Ron Anderson = stupid
Sarah Palin = stupid
Ron Anderson ≈ Sarah Palin
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 01:00pm PT
malemutt,, if my dog looked like you id shave its ass and teach it to walk backwards..



See there THATS how you CUT someone.. If your bound and determined to interject nonsense then please do so with a bit more "gusto"..
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 02:03pm PT
Crickets.......


OK Rick. I'm off to do other stuff too but I look forward to your reply. I hope that unlike Ron you can differentiate between robust debate and simple minded character assassination and hopeless diversionary tactics.

No doubt you agree that if you want to engage in an intellectual knife fight either one of us should be able to take a knife through the ribs with good grace. One things for sure, unlike you I have no intention of having a scientific knife fight with ED or Chiloe as much as I'd want to fight Muhammad Ali. I'd rather just learn what ever I can. Spar maybe but never be so stupid as to go in for the kill.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 04:39pm PT
hey mtlion go find someone else's leg to hump...

And NEVER bring my parents into YOUR bullshyt. Ill stomp you a "knew" azzhole. cyberly and litterally...
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 31, 2013 - 04:58pm PT
And NEVER bring my parents into YOUR bullshy

I agree, Ron

that was wrong

all of us do tend to insult others who we may disagree with, fine we are all thick skinned

but making up stuff about one's parents is flat wrong, that is over the line personal



wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 31, 2013 - 05:35pm PT
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Which gov. agency denies CC?

Yep,there are none,cant find any.

Credit: wilbeer

You fellows get some consensus ,then get back to me.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
May 31, 2013 - 06:27pm PT
The Chief wrote:
With that said, I am outta here for a while. Heading up to some secret spots...

LOL!!!!!!!1111 Lines like that might work on the n00bs on summitpost, but I doubt too many here are impressed with your vast secret knowledge of the Sierra.

Tell the truth, are you really placing convenience anchors on the Mountaineer's route, like you did on North Peak?

Climb safe out there, OK?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 31, 2013 - 08:28pm PT
as will Westboro Baptist Church
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 1, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
If the sun happened to dip below all observed activity for any significant period of time, if this corresponded with a low in geomagnetic activity, and if we happened to be recipient of an unusually high Cr flux, well the results would be catastrophic truly. I appreciated all the corroborating articles/papers on my "intuition" of atmospheric changes doe to solar and extra solar energies in relation to magnetic variation, but i know you like a good argument and are likely to bait and switch, Ed.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 1, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
Rick! You forgot about me again. Do you realize the effect this is having on my self esteem?

If I was paranoid I might think that this is deliberate, that you no longer think addressing my questions and ideas is worthy of your valuable time. I won't pretend I can wrestle with you and ed on points of science but I hope you can still deign to lower your standards in my direction occasionally.

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 3, 2013 - 08:33pm PT
Ed have you heard the latest breaking news on a study (peer reviewed) that shows even the IPCC scientists are now thinking that our atmosphere is FAR more resilient to green house gasses than thought even in last years reports? And that "black carbon" may be far more of an effect than CO2 which they now are BACKING AWAY from!??
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 3, 2013 - 09:24pm PT
and who is the author? Was it by any chance the esteemed Dr Sumner of the Sarah Palin Institute of Russian studies? Was it reviewed by his peers down at the Wassilla Bar and grill?

Forgive my pessimism Ron but your track record of citing credible sources is a bit suspect. for instance take your last cut and paste from that fellow Joe Martino. His blog site is an interesting study in just how far a guy can go in establishing "credibility" by sounding complex and learned. The only problem is his only claim to scientific training is a belief in creationism.

Which begs the question of you Ron - why do you trust a person like Joe Martino to interpret, critique and judge any science? What is your criteria for establishing a credible source for your information?









Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 3, 2013 - 10:35pm PT
They interviewed a scientist on the Tom Sullivan radio show today. As i was working i did not catch the names.. Its a fairly new paper, and they specifically stated peer reviewed.
Messages 7541 - 7560 of total 28358 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