Question On Global Warming & Past Ice Ages

[sao123]

Everyone is paranoid about global warming stopping the gulf stream and such...
I'm not against global warming theories...

But i want to know...

Do we know, or can we find out, if the gulf stream has weakened or stopped before thus creating all the ice ages? This all seems like the natural cycle, which we may or may not be speeding up the course of...

We are not the only possible cause of greenhouse gases being released...
Volcanic Eruptions, Large Fires, etc... could have caused this to happen long ago in the past... Maybe its inevitable that this happens again, not if... just when.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: sao123
Everyone is paranoid about global warming stopping the gulf stream and such...
I'm not against global warming theories...

But i want to know...

Do we know, or can we find out, if the gulf stream has weakened or stopped before thus creating all the ice ages? This all seems like the natural cycle, which we may or may not be speeding up the course of...

We are not the only possible cause of greenhouse gases being released...
Volcanic Eruptions, Large Fires, etc... could have caused this to happen long ago in the past... Maybe its inevitable that this happens again, not if... just when.

There is plenty of data to show that we have completely broken the natural cycle.

 

[MrWizzard]

Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

Ding!!!

 

[Zysoclaplem]

I take comfort in knowing that I played a small part in ruining the only known inhabitable planet.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
I take comfort in knowing that I played a small part in ruining the only known habitable planet.

Fixed.

But it's still wrong

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

There is insufficient data and understanding of all the climate mechanisms to make that claim or the claim that global warming is a solely a man initiated event.

I lean to the position that the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle that may have been sped up by human activities. Curtailing emissions is a good idea all around imo but running around like chicken little saying we are all doomed is ridiculous and unproductive. Also, the way that most of the strongly pro-man made global warming people shout down ANYONE who does not 100% agree with them isn't right or mature.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: sao123
We are not the only possible cause of greenhouse gases being released...
Volcanic Eruptions, Large Fires, etc... could have caused this to happen long ago in the past... Maybe its inevitable that this happens again, not if... just when.

Of course. Otherwise there would not have been ice ages in the past.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

There is insufficient data and understanding of all the climate mechanisms to make that claim or the claim that global warming is a solely a man initiated event.

I lean to the position that the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle that may have been sped up by human activities. Curtailing emissions is a good idea all around imo but running around like chicken little saying we are all doomed is ridiculous and unproductive. Also, the way that most of the strongly pro-man made global warming people shout down ANYONE who does not 100% agree with them isn't right or mature.

I agree completely.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

..:thumbsup:

 

[BD2003]

I guess the only way to find out for sure that will convince everyone is the hard way.

I find stuff like this very, very hard to ignore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

But screw scientific consensus and peer reviewed journals. We all know better than them, because we read the newspaper.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

..:thumbsup:

A little knowledge is very dangerous. We have a VERY detailed picture of the climate's history from ice and ocean sediment cores. We know a lot more about the cycles than you think- ever heard of Melankovitch?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I guess the only way to find out for sure that will convince everyone is the hard way.

I find stuff like this very, very hard to ignore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

But screw scientific consensus and peer reviewed journals. We all know better than them, because we read the newspaper.

So the scientific consensus there fails to link global temperature with carbon dioxide levels.

Also, the IPCC "bible" that GW advocates use readily admits, even with crappy little graphics that laymans can understand, that they have very little understanding about many aspects of how the earths temperature is maintained.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

..:thumbsup:

A little knowledge is very dangerous. We have a VERY detailed picture of the climate's history from ice and ocean sediment cores. We know a lot more about the cycles than you think- ever heard of Melankovitch?

ice cores do NOT in any way tell you historic temperatures.

 

[chusteczka]

Neanderthal man created the last ice age with the invention of fire and look what happened to him.
Before Neanderthal man were dragons with their fiery breath. They also did not live through the ice age their fiery breath caused.

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

..:thumbsup:

A little knowledge is very dangerous. We have a VERY detailed picture of the climate's history from ice and ocean sediment cores. We know a lot more about the cycles than you think- ever heard of Melankovitch?

ice cores do NOT in any way tell you historic temperatures.

Sure they do. Ice cores tell you that it was cold enough to freeze water and not warm enough to melt the previous ice layers.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

..:thumbsup:

A little knowledge is very dangerous. We have a VERY detailed picture of the climate's history from ice and ocean sediment cores. We know a lot more about the cycles than you think- ever heard of Melankovitch?

ice cores do NOT in any way tell you historic temperatures.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or dD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: K1052
I lean to the position that the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle that may have been sped up by human activities.

Regardless of what is causing it, global warming is clearly not a natural cycle.

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I guess the only way to find out for sure that will convince everyone is the hard way.

I find stuff like this very, very hard to ignore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

But screw scientific consensus and peer reviewed journals. We all know better than them, because we read the newspaper.

My question with that graph is: are there 400,000 evenly distributed points on that graph?

You take a sampling of 200 years (industrial revolution - present) and compare it to the past 400,000? I've always wondered how account for any possible noise in the signal, because there is no way it is that smooth. Massive volcanic events, for one, would lead to significant variation in the data, but would, most likely, smooth out over a 100 or even 10year average.

Another question I have is how do they prove the diffusion models correlate over 400,000 years? CO2 trapped in ice should diffuse, slowly. This should serve to flatten any peaks as well.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

Ding!!!

Yes, like the CO2 levels that are way above levels that have ever occured in "previous cycles"

Has anyone noticed that when you try to look over long distances, there is a haze in the air? Does this bother anyone? Does anyone actually realize that 50 years ago you could see much farther?

BOTTOM LINE: Even if you are not 100% sure ... is it worth the risk of ignoring what science is bringing to our attention as KNOWN RISKS? That is the true test of ones ignorance.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

..:thumbsup:

A little knowledge is very dangerous. We have a VERY detailed picture of the climate's history from ice and ocean sediment cores. We know a lot more about the cycles than you think- ever heard of Melankovitch?

ice cores do NOT in any way tell you historic temperatures.

Oh boy ...... that's not the point of ice cores. Ice cores tell you how long the ice has been there via carbon dating. The fact that ice is melting at a rapid rate (over the past 20 years for example) that has been frozen for tens of thousands of years should at the very least, raise eyebrows.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

..:thumbsup:

A little knowledge is very dangerous. We have a VERY detailed picture of the climate's history from ice and ocean sediment cores. We know a lot more about the cycles than you think- ever heard of Melankovitch?

ice cores do NOT in any way tell you historic temperatures.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or dD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records.

But he *just* said they don't correlate. Didnt you read it? He said it VERY definitively - so he clearly must know what he's talking about. He's probably a climatologist.

 

[everman]

What annoys me is that people think that by changing small things in countries like the U.S. will help stop global warming, all while countries like China are dumping more and more pollution practically negating anything that we do. So the question is, who should pay for global warming?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: everman
What annoys me is that people think that by changing small things in countries like the U.S. will help stop global warming, all while countries like China are dumping more and more pollution practically negating anything that we do. So the question is, who should pay for global warming?

Throwing the flag!!!!

China's government is spending more money on R&D of alternative energy than the US gov't. FACT.

The world super powers need to lead the change so when 3rd world countries develop, they start using "green tech" instead of poluting tech.

Baby steps now will have a big impact later on.

And Chian's polution problem will be fixed by the pressures from their people. Their air is so messed up that China really has no choice other than make things better.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Human Global warming is a myth, the earth has cycles.

Yes it does! Global catastrophe and extinctions!

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: BD2003
I guess the only way to find out for sure that will convince everyone is the hard way.

I find stuff like this very, very hard to ignore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

But screw scientific consensus and peer reviewed journals. We all know better than them, because we read the newspaper.

My question with that graph is: are there 400,000 evenly distributed points on that graph?

You take a sampling of 200 years (industrial revolution - present) and compare it to the past 400,000? I've always wondered how account for any possible noise in the signal, because there is no way it is that smooth. Massive volcanic events, for one, would lead to significant variation in the data, but would, most likely, smooth out over a 100 or even 10year average.

Another question I have is how do they prove the diffusion models correlate over 400,000 years? CO2 trapped in ice should diffuse, slowly. This should serve to flatten any peaks as well.

According to the discussion page on wiki:

On the technical point, yes, Vostok is sampled on average every ~1000 years (though the spacing varies a good deal), but that does not necessarily imply that one could obscure large swings such as are seen in the modern period. Carbon dioxide has a long residence time in the atmosphere making it likely that perturbations would be seen even with sparse sampling. Secondly, the maximum difference between adjacent samples is only 50 ppm, with 95% of shifts less than 20 ppm, whereas the modern shift is already about 100 ppm in the last 200 years. If rapid shifts can occur, then statistically one would expect random sampling to capture some. Third, we know from carbon isotopic evidence that the modern increase is caused entirely by the burning of fossil fuels. That explanation obviously doesn't work in distant past, so there is no reason to expect large rapid changes, like are occuring in the present day, to have occured in the past. Fourth, other studies at other sites, though generally less comprehensive support the conclusions offered by Vostok.
Your argument boils down to: "and there might be other shifts we didn't see because of sampling", but for the reasons given above and other reasons I haven't tried to enumerate, it is generally believed that there aren't any large unsampled variations. Hence your warning is uncalled for and unsupported by existing research.