I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
We will continue to see more and more scientists including climatologists revising their opinion on climate change. As Photo fish pointed out, ever since the last ice age 10,000 years ago, there has been a progressive increase in temperature and sea level rise. The chart such as he shows is analogous to the submerged mangrove peat record, a record that reflects the shift from intertidal to the subtidal zone. You will also note that this long term record has experienced a pronounced change in slope, indicating an overall slowdown in the rate of glacial ice melt. Superimposed on this long term trend are short term cycles of warming and cooling. This is why we have a mini ice age about every 100-150 years. Given the time of the last one (about 150 years ago) we are due.
On another matter with regard to CO2. While it is a green house gas, it is NOT driving the rise in temperature. If it were the cause, it would show an increase in the atmosphere followed by an increase in temperature. The exact opposite occurs, meaning the increase in temperature and humidity elevates the atmospheric CO2 content.
Deep sea drilling and analysis of Miocene deep sea sediments feature a cyclcity of climatic change on a sale of 100,000 years, If anyone wishes, I can provide the reference and pdf of the article. There are other investigations of past geologic climate change. The sedimentologic literature is full of such examples. Man is not the driving force of climate change, nor is the CO2 flux. Every stratigraphic study I do deals with changes in sea level and climate change in the geologic record. Extremely hot periods mark the Permian and Triassic, the late Cretaceous and late Jurassic. Climate change is expressed by a global increase in evaporite deposition (think gypsum and salt deposition) and an abundance of red beds ( For example the rocks that you see at Red Rocks and along 285 as you exit the canyon (including Nipple Rock). Ice house periods in the Geologic past include the famous Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, etc. glaciation periods that leave evidence of their movement as striations cut into the rock surfaces on continents located in temperate and tropical latitudes in the tropics. So excuse me if I'm not on the climatology bandwagon. It just does not add up to the wealth of geologic information available on the subject. Considering the geologic record and comparing it to the short term record climatologists are trying to use for extrapolation purposes, it's small wonder that there are significant misinterpretations. As with all science, there are a few pioneers who first formulate a working hypothesis, publish it and then a whole herd of others jump on the bandwagon mustering support for it in their own data. I see this all the time with scientists anxious to get their name associated with the latest hot idea.
Disclaimer. My statement above does not promote disregard for CO2 emission or the emissions of pollutants. I'm all for a clean earth and environment. My statement is merely a scientific set of observations that are in stark contrast to the climatology hype in the political and media arena.
Rockdoc Franz wrote: We will continue to see more and more scientists including climatologists revising their opinion on climate change. As Photo fish pointed out, ever since the last ice age 10,000 years ago, there has been a progressive increase in temperature and sea level rise. The chart such as he shows is analogous to the submerged mangrove peat record, a record that reflects the shift from intertidal to the subtidal zone. You will also note that this long term record has experienced a pronounced change in slope, indicating an overall slowdown in the rate of glacial ice melt. Superimposed on this long term trend are short term cycles of warming and cooling. This is why we have a mini ice age about every 100-150 years. Given the time of the last one (about 150 years ago) we are due.
On another matter with regard to CO2. While it is a green house gas, it is NOT driving the rise in temperature. If it were the cause, it would show an increase in the atmosphere followed by an increase in temperature. The exact opposite occurs, meaning the increase in temperature and humidity elevates the atmospheric CO2 content.
No big deal, but it wasn't Photo fish you are referring to. It was my post.
So far as the historical temperatures increasing before CO2 increased, I agree with that. And that was a big issue I had with Al Gore's movie where he spent a major part of his movie with ice cores and did all he could to imply that CO2 went up before temperatures rised, without actually saying it. But the data shows temps did increase before CO2 went up. And I understand a good part of that, as temps go up more CO2 gets released from the oceans. The global warming sites like realclimate.org have an explanation for it and seem to say as more and more CO2 got released temps raised even faster than they would of with just the warming, but I'll admit I haven't spent enough time to study it and right now it looks more like handwaving to me.
But what's happening now is different. Humans are now contributing to the rise in CO2 which wasn't the case in the rest of the history of the planet. So now we have a new driving force in CO2 increase other than the natural temperature increases which happened in the past. Based on my view, our contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere will contribute to temperature increases. But I'm an engineer and not a scientist and I can't say by how much.
And while I agree with the main point of the article that we don't need to panic yet about climate change, they still don't have many climatologists signing it. I think I counted one, but as I said, I don't know most of those names.
I'm still waiting for one of our plastic-saving-recycling-nut liberal to debate the points set out in the scientists letter?
You're waiting for someone here at 285Bound to debate your scientists?
Good luck with that..This is a small redneck mountain community message board, it's not a think tank...I heard we do have a published author here though.. lol
Rockdoc Franz wrote: We will continue to see more and more scientists including climatologists revising their opinion on climate change. As Photo fish pointed out, ever since the last ice age 10,000 years ago, there has been a progressive increase in temperature and sea level rise. The chart such as he shows is analogous to the submerged mangrove peat record, a record that reflects the shift from intertidal to the subtidal zone. You will also note that this long term record has experienced a pronounced change in slope, indicating an overall slowdown in the rate of glacial ice melt. Superimposed on this long term trend are short term cycles of warming and cooling. This is why we have a mini ice age about every 100-150 years. Given the time of the last one (about 150 years ago) we are due.
On another matter with regard to CO2. While it is a green house gas, it is NOT driving the rise in temperature. If it were the cause, it would show an increase in the atmosphere followed by an increase in temperature. The exact opposite occurs, meaning the increase in temperature and humidity elevates the atmospheric CO2 content.
Deep sea drilling and analysis of Miocene deep sea sediments feature a cyclcity of climatic change on a sale of 100,000 years, If anyone wishes, I can provide the reference and pdf of the article. There are other investigations of past geologic climate change. The sedimentologic literature is full of such examples. Man is not the driving force of climate change, nor is the CO2 flux. Every stratigraphic study I do deals with changes in sea level and climate change in the geologic record. Extremely hot periods mark the Permian and Triassic, the late Cretaceous and late Jurassic. Climate change is expressed by a global increase in evaporite deposition (think gypsum and salt deposition) and an abundance of red beds ( For example the rocks that you see at Red Rocks and along 285 as you exit the canyon (including Nipple Rock). Ice house periods in the Geologic past include the famous Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, etc. glaciation periods that leave evidence of their movement as striations cut into the rock surfaces on continents located in temperate and tropical latitudes in the tropics. So excuse me if I'm not on the climatology bandwagon. It just does not add up to the wealth of geologic information available on the subject. Considering the geologic record and comparing it to the short term record climatologists are trying to use for extrapolation purposes, it's small wonder that there are significant misinterpretations. As with all science, there are a few pioneers who first formulate a working hypothesis, publish it and then a whole herd of others jump on the bandwagon mustering support for it in their own data. I see this all the time with scientists anxious to get their name associated with the latest hot idea.
Disclaimer. My statement above does not promote disregard for CO2 emission or the emissions of pollutants. I'm all for a clean earth and environment. My statement is merely a scientific set of observations that are in stark contrast to the climatology hype in the political and media arena.
:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: I swear I could only get through half of that..
RocDoc: a scientist specialising in Cut And Pastry-.. lol
VL - Face it, if you had a basic education and the reading comprehension to go along with it you would realize Doc just gave you a school house of information. A reasonable person would evaluate the information Doc posted, do their best to make sense of it AND THEN make an informed post in response.
It's a guess on my part but I'm thinking your K-12 program wasn't all it should have been or perhaps your ability as a student is/was sub standard.
Crawl back under your rock and stay there until you have something intelligent to say.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
No big deal, but it wasn't Photo fish you are referring to. It was my post.
So far as the historical temperatures increasing before CO2 increased, I agree with that. And that was a big issue I had with Al Gore's movie where he spent a major part of his movie with ice cores and did all he could to imply that CO2 went up before temperatures rised, without actually saying it. But the data shows temps did increase before CO2 went up. And I understand a good part of that, as temps go up more CO2 gets released from the oceans. The global warming sites like realclimate.org have an explanation for it and seem to say as more and more CO2 got released temps raised even faster than they would of with just the warming, but I'll admit I haven't spent enough time to study it and right now it looks more like handwaving to me.
But what's happening now is different. Humans are now contributing to the rise in CO2 which wasn't the case in the rest of the history of the planet. So now we have a new driving force in CO2 increase other than the natural temperature increases which happened in the past. Based on my view, our contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere will contribute to temperature increases. But I'm an engineer and not a scientist and I can't say by how much.
And while I agree with the main point of the article that we don't need to panic yet about climate change, they still don't have many climatologists signing it. I think I counted one, but as I said, I don't know most of those names.
My apologies pineinthegrass. It was a careless mistake. There is no doubt we are contributing to the CO2 emissions. A fundamental problem with accessing it's impact is actually measuring where the CO2 goes (its flux). During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. Much of that CO2 in crease is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy. Unfortunately most of this loading is by countries in the Northern Hemisphere, yet the loading is seen globally without the circulation lag AGW people say exists.
“Fossil fuels are richer in C12 than the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from plants, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to tell their “signatures” apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants.
Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions.”
Therein lies the fundamental problem for me. If I can not accurately access the CO2 flux, it makes no sense to attribute temperature increases on anthropomorphic causes. When you look at the long term record of increasing temperature what is obvious is that there is a progressive decrease in the rate of temperature rise since the last ice age. Temperature flux over the past 100 years do show a spike and it is that very spike that climatologists have pointed to to support their claims. Completely ignored and unaddressed are the small scale cycles that are superimposed on the long term trend. Each of these cycles shows a temperature positive and negative spike. I expect we will see a negative spike starting relatively soon. When (or if) that happens how will climatologists respond? Those who are politically engaged and motivated by the huge financial support will continue to prostitute themselves and come up with all kinds of reasons to dismiss contrary evidence, but true scientists will look at that data (which will include a fall in CO2) and realize that there are other components at work that have an even greater influence than CO2 on global temperature fluctuations. It would be even more interesting if CO2 were to continue to climb while average global temperature falls. Much remains to be learned about CO2 flux and just how critical our emissions are in the whole scheme of things. It is a work in progress.
rofllol
