Another global warming question

[BigToque]

Since this topic seems to be all the rage at the moment, I've got a question based on the premise that the current spike in CO2 and impending increase in temperature is entirely caused by humans.

If you look at the historical data for CO2 and temperature, there are clearly rises and falls in temperatures. Where we are currently living is one of the rises. Even though we may temporarily increase the worlds temperature for a few hundred or thousand years, is it possible that this might be enough of an increase to offset what might be the next naturally occuring ice age, thus giving us a much nicer climate for the next 10,000 years?

 

[irishScott]

And melting the glaciers, thereby giving us a much wetter climate as well?

There are so many ramifications (good and bad) from a higher climate it's impossible to pin down at present.

 

[SampSon]

This should really be posted in the original global warming thread, no more than 4 threads down from this.... 😀

Earth and it's natural cycles will trump anything man can throw at it.

Next thread: If superman really existed and he flew really fast around the earth, would it reverse the rotation, and if it did, what impact would it have on the flight of a football thrown from peyton mannings hand?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: BigToque
is it possible that this might be enough of an increase to offset what might be the next naturally occuring ice age, thus giving us a much nicer climate for the next 10,000 years?

Yea, sure.

Wanna risk it?

 

[destrekor]

according to research, a warmer than average climate can never last for a long period of time, because it disrupts the natural balance and the weather corrects this balance, and through that process usually ends up creating an ice age. all previous spikes have led to ice ages. the current thought is that the salt-balance in the ocean is going to be disrupted, which will throw off the natural warm/cold water currents, bringing much different climates to a good portion of the world.
in reality? well, we'll see if anything destructive happens in our life-time. they predict that before the end of the century a vast amount of the coastal land around the world will be under water. but thats really only if that warming trend is allowed to continue through the end of the century. what if the 'great conveyor belt' (i.e. warm/cold current system that makes up all of the Atlantic Ocean and continues into the Indian Ocean, touching the Pacific Ocean), is disrupted by too much fresh water being introduced into oceans from the ice caps?
we have no clue, because we have no records of how it would happen in our case, and exactly how it happened in previous cases. we just know it has happened, and in an extremely swift motion. things froze instantly. are we going to have the same fate?

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

There has been a VERY rapid increase over the past 50 years, which happens to coincide directly with industrial development. Sure, it COULD be a coincidence, but that is unlikely.

 

[Tuktuk]

I found this article interesting:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

 

[everman]

The ice core samples supposedly tell us that the last 10k years or so have been a rather calm period in terms of global climate, it's usually not this nice on this planet. Humans are short sighted, they think everything can be done immediately and have no real patience for long term things.

 

[Schadenfroh]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5960

 

[eits]

[idiot voice]global warming is a hoax... it's not real... its all hype by the media...[/idiot voice]

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

There has been a VERY rapid increase over the past 50 years, which happens to coincide directly with industrial development. Sure, it COULD be a coincidence, but that is unlikely.

According to that chart, a similar spike occurred about 328 years ago.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

There has been a VERY rapid increase over the past 50 years, which happens to coincide directly with industrial development. Sure, it COULD be a coincidence, but that is unlikely.

According to that chart, a similar spike occurred about 328 years ago.

Right, but two things are different.

1) The rate of increase is higher.
2) The timing is questionable. The increase coincides EXACTLY with industrial output. So years when industrial output has been down, the rate of CO2 increase lowers.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

There has been a VERY rapid increase over the past 50 years, which happens to coincide directly with industrial development. Sure, it COULD be a coincidence, but that is unlikely.

According to that chart, a similar spike occurred about 328 years ago.

i guess you're not very observant...

look at the bright red arrow on the side of the chart which indicates what the current levels of co2 is...

 

[eakers]

read this, your questions will be answered.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/241518,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article

 

[Tuktuk]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

There has been a VERY rapid increase over the past 50 years, which happens to coincide directly with industrial development. Sure, it COULD be a coincidence, but that is unlikely.

According to that chart, a similar spike occurred about 328 years ago.

i guess you're not very observant...

look at the bright red arrow on the side of the chart which indicates what the current levels of co2 is...

Of course co2 levels have gone up, we had the industrial revolution. I believe he was referring to the temperature that is still within the field of normalcy. Simply coinciding with the industrial revolution spike is hardly concrete proof that global warming is man made.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

There has been a VERY rapid increase over the past 50 years, which happens to coincide directly with industrial development. Sure, it COULD be a coincidence, but that is unlikely.

According to that chart, a similar spike occurred about 328 years ago.

i guess you're not very observant...

look at the bright red arrow on the side of the chart which indicates what the current levels of co2 is...

and that the graph represents THOUSANDS OF YEARS... so by that he means about 328k years ago, which um.... big deal? it also happened around 10k years ago, but according to the graph it never returned to natural levels.

 

[eakers]

here is some more light reading on the topic

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
I found this article interesting:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Whose pay roll is this guy on? Any time an op ed piece starts with "credentials" one should raise a brow and wonder. The author IGNORES scientific consensus in favor of his UCL degree which makes him canadians smartest man. :roll:

Pure rubbish based on the politicizing of the issue that the right so desires. Yay, for ignorance.

 

[homercles337]

Can all of you dopes QUIT linking to your favorite punit in an effort to politicize science?! Please? Lets see you link to Science and Nature if you want to continue this discussion.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
I found this article interesting:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Whose pay roll is this guy on? Any time an op ed piece starts with "credentials" one should raise a brow and wonder. The author IGNORES scientific consensus in favor of his UCL degree which makes him canadians smartest man. :roll:

Pure rubbish based on the politicizing of the issue that the right so desires. Yay, for ignorance.

i believe he addressed whose payroll he was on. whose payroll are you on?

 

[Tuktuk]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
I found this article interesting:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Whose pay roll is this guy on? Any time an op ed piece starts with "credentials" one should raise a brow and wonder. The author IGNORES scientific consensus in favor of his UCL degree which makes him canadians smartest man. :roll:

Pure rubbish based on the politicizing of the issue that the right so desires. Yay, for ignorance.

You ignore the argument all together. It seems you read the italics and stopped there. If you're going to call it rubbish, please do so with facts. The man presented an argument, what is wrong with what he said? He acknowledges scientific consensus but finds flaw in it, as any good scientist has an obligation to try to do.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Of course co2 levels have gone up, we had the industrial revolution. I believe he was referring to the temperature that is still within the field of normalcy. Simply coinciding with the industrial revolution spike is hardly concrete proof that global warming is man made.

All other factors remaining the same, rising CO2 in the troposphere will result in higher temperatures. Just look at temperatures on Venus.

But, the earth is an extremely complicated system. So, to figure out how the climate fluctuates we've drilled out ice cores that give us a CO2 record form trapped gas in the ice and a temperature record from oxygen isotope data. We also have records of other gases from these cores. But, it appears that CO2 levels, of all the gases and other factors we are aware of, match up the closest with temperature as seen in the graph posted above. And it matches up quite well at that.

As a result, we are led to believe that more CO2 will result in higher temperature for the complex earth system as well. But, how do we test this? Well, with modeling. Here is a graph of natural forcings (volcanoes, el nino, etc.) and anthropogenic forgings in the form of particulate pollution (which cools the troposphere) and greenhouse gas pollution.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Note that neither anthropogenic nor natural forcings that we are aware of match up with the temperature record. However, the combination of the two does closely match up to the temperature record.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
I found this article interesting:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Whose pay roll is this guy on? Any time an op ed piece starts with "credentials" one should raise a brow and wonder. The author IGNORES scientific consensus in favor of his UCL degree which makes him canadians smartest man. :roll:

Pure rubbish based on the politicizing of the issue that the right so desires. Yay, for ignorance.

i believe he addressed whose payroll he was on. whose payroll are you on?

Ummm, this is his bank roller (National Resources Stweardship Project :roll: ). Thinly veiled attempts are just as easily uncovered as the more obnoxious ones. Im a scientist. Show me ONE peer reviewed publication in a reputable journal that supports outlandish claims such as those coming out of the white house. Cant do it, can you? Ok .... i will wait.

 

[TheRyuu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

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

Just felt like linking. 😛

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
I found this article interesting:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Whose pay roll is this guy on? Any time an op ed piece starts with "credentials" one should raise a brow and wonder. The author IGNORES scientific consensus in favor of his UCL degree which makes him canadians smartest man. :roll:

Pure rubbish based on the politicizing of the issue that the right so desires. Yay, for ignorance.

You ignore the argument all together. It seems you read the italics and stopped there. If you're going to call it rubbish, please do so with facts. The man presented an argument, what is wrong with what he said? He acknowledges scientific consensus but finds flaw in it, as any good scientist has an obligation to try to do.

Again, n00b, my facts are found in Science and Nature. Two of the highest, most respected, career determining journals in the scientific community. Find me ONE pub form said journals that agrees with your pundit/op-ed crap. Just one, thats all i ask. You claim to understand the scientific process so searching and finding pubs from Science and Nature sould be NO problem, right? Ok then...go.