Remember me
▼ Content

One question


One question04-05-2015 23:08
Ben-ove
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Havent there been sevral iceages in the past, and some warm periods, that means this has happend eaven before humens existed.
I belive we cant stop it. And we have no controll over it and it will just keep happening with or without us.

PS: sorry for my horrible English.
05-05-2015 01:47
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
The Earth's climate has been warmer and colder in the past, but that does not mean we are not responsible for THIS warming nor that we couldn't control it. We could talk about this for a long time, but that is the basic truth. Concluding that man could not be responsible for global warming because warming happened in the past before humans were present is identical to claiming that humans cannot cause forest fires.
Edited on 05-05-2015 01:48
RE: Cimate change12-06-2015 06:01
Exodus
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Global warming ? climate change ? Who creates these myths ?
"never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such." ( Rene Descartes 1596 - 1650)
Last summer in Australia was the hottest on record ???? News to me, as here in Adelaide we only had four really hot days and my swimming pool was hardly used. This morning 2°C, normal for the time of year
Rising sea levels ? In the 47 years that I have lived in Australia the sea level looks the same to me. High tide mark is no higher than it was in 1968. Port Adelaide River is much the same as when sailing ships docked here years ago.
Carbon levels ? Possible increase due to increased motor transport. What did the Australian govt. do to reduce emissions ? Imposed a carbon tax on industry which immediately led to higher prices for goods and services. Did it lower emissions ? NO but it did put $ into the treasury.
14-08-2015 08:55
Glitch
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
There have been five major ice-ages during the last 650 million years.

During the Ordovician-Silurian extinction event 443.4 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 was ~4,400 ppm (11 times higher than current levels). Yet mean surface temperatures plummeted by 8°C to 10°C creating the third ice-age event and the second largest extinction event in Earth's history.

Furthermore, during the end of the Permian (just after the Carboniferous-Permian ice-age, or fourth ice-age event), between 270 and 250 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 ranged between 250 ppm and 350 ppm (lower than current levels), but mean surface temperatures skyrocketed to between 35°C and 40°C, the highest mean surface temperatures in the last 500 million years and the largest extinction event ever recorded.

Which irrefutably proves that there is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and mean surface temperatures.
Edited on 14-08-2015 08:56
21-08-2015 22:32
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Glitch

I must say that's some pretty flawed and un-scientific logic.

I'm not sure where you got your CO2 values for the end of the Permian. This graph (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html) shows atmospheric CO2 being around 2000 ppm at the end of the Permian, with global mean temperature being ~25 deg C.

In addition, it is completely inappropriate to compare the Ordovician-Silurian boundary atmospheric conditions today for several very good reasons. The main one is that 443 million years ago, there were no land plants or animals. All life only existed in the ocean. Therefore there was no terrestrial component to the carbon cycle, so it is not surprising that atmospheric CO2 was very high during this period, since the land biosphere acts as a significant sink for CO2. There was also hardly any land in the northern hemisphere, with all the land masses collected together around the south pole by the end of the Ordovician, and all the land was glaciated. Therefore, the ocean component of the carbon cycle would likely have been very different to today's, as the biology and circulation would also have been very different. The end of the Ordovician was also a period of extensive volcanism, far exceeding today's levels of volcanism, and contributing to high levels of atmospheric CO2. Earth was, to say the least, a very different place, and we have a good understanding of why the climatic conditions at the time existed, based on our understanding of the carbon cycle. It is not appropriate to compare what is happening today to the Ordovician-Silurian boundary.

The change in atmospheric CO2 today is *not* described as unprecedented because of the current atmospheric CO2 mole fraction. It is well known that CO2 has been much higher in the past. It is unprecedented because as far as we know, atmospheric CO2 has never changed so quickly in such a short period of time. Previous 'rapid' changes in atmospheric CO2 have typically occurred over thousands of years. The rate of change of CO2 today is at least an order of magnitude greater than anything that has been seen in the past.
01-09-2015 11:36
abbottisgone
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
...MILANKOVITCH CYCLES ARE REAL: co2 just reinforces them! It's called a feedback mechanism but all the deniers know this and prey on the kiddies - just your average propaganda that sells coles and wooworths products to the sheeple called hollywood auters!
01-09-2015 14:12
Glitch
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi Glitch

I must say that's some pretty flawed and un-scientific logic.

I'm not sure where you got your CO2 values for the end of the Permian. This graph (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html) shows atmospheric CO2 being around 2000 ppm at the end of the Permian, with global mean temperature being ~25 deg C.

In addition, it is completely inappropriate to compare the Ordovician-Silurian boundary atmospheric conditions today for several very good reasons. The main one is that 443 million years ago, there were no land plants or animals. All life only existed in the ocean. Therefore there was no terrestrial component to the carbon cycle, so it is not surprising that atmospheric CO2 was very high during this period, since the land biosphere acts as a significant sink for CO2. There was also hardly any land in the northern hemisphere, with all the land masses collected together around the south pole by the end of the Ordovician, and all the land was glaciated. Therefore, the ocean component of the carbon cycle would likely have been very different to today's, as the biology and circulation would also have been very different. The end of the Ordovician was also a period of extensive volcanism, far exceeding today's levels of volcanism, and contributing to high levels of atmospheric CO2. Earth was, to say the least, a very different place, and we have a good understanding of why the climatic conditions at the time existed, based on our understanding of the carbon cycle. It is not appropriate to compare what is happening today to the Ordovician-Silurian boundary.

The change in atmospheric CO2 today is *not* described as unprecedented because of the current atmospheric CO2 mole fraction. It is well known that CO2 has been much higher in the past. It is unprecedented because as far as we know, atmospheric CO2 has never changed so quickly in such a short period of time. Previous 'rapid' changes in atmospheric CO2 have typically occurred over thousands of years. The rate of change of CO2 today is at least an order of magnitude greater than anything that has been seen in the past.
First, as expected, your "graph" depicts the beginning of the Carboniferous when CO2 levels were 2,000 ppm, not the end of the Permian when CO2 levels were below 350 ppm. Second, it is entirely appropriate to make the comparison between the Ordovician-Silurian boundary atmospheric conditions and today, since the purpose is to demonstrate that CO2 levels have absolutely no correlation with mean surface temperatures. Third, we have seen CO2 levels increase dramatically in the past, at the beginning of the Triassic when the Siberian Traps began erupting. The Siberian Trap eruptions actually cooled the planet from 35°C to 40°C at the end of the Permian down to 22°C and allowed life to rebound.

It is rather hysterical, not to mention being completely disingenuous, that you would attempt to compare less the 150 years of recorded temperatures and less than 100 years of recorded atmospheric CO2 levels with the billions of years the planet has existed and call it "unprecedented."
02-09-2015 03:02
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Glitch wrote:
There have been five major ice-ages during the last 650 million years.

During the Ordovician-Silurian extinction event 443.4 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 was ~4,400 ppm (11 times higher than current levels). Yet mean surface temperatures plummeted by 8°C to 10°C creating the third ice-age event and the second largest extinction event in Earth's history.

Furthermore, during the end of the Permian (just after the Carboniferous-Permian ice-age, or fourth ice-age event), between 270 and 250 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 ranged between 250 ppm and 350 ppm (lower than current levels), but mean surface temperatures skyrocketed to between 35°C and 40°C, the highest mean surface temperatures in the last 500 million years and the largest extinction event ever recorded.

Which irrefutably proves that there is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and mean surface temperatures.


It proves nothing of the sort. Your (wrong) assumption here is that the rise and fall of GHGs is the only cause of global warming or cooling. Also that CO2 is the only GHG. Many other factors can affect the global average temperature: the solar output, changes in the Earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions, the changing topography of the Earth, meteorite impacts, etc. Any one of them can dominate the others under given circumstances and for different periods.

Every bump and wiggle in the climate record can be explained by natural forcings until 1910. Since then and especially from 1975 onwards, no combination of natural factors can explain the rapid rise in global temperatures observed. The only factor that makes the data understandable is the addition of man-made GHGs (not just CO2) and aerosols to the atmosphere.
07-10-2015 11:54
KeiranKProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Ben-ove wrote:
Havent there been sevral iceages in the past, and some warm periods, that means this has happend eaven before humens existed.
I belive we cant stop it. And we have no controll over it and it will just keep happening with or without us.

PS: sorry for my horrible English.


We can't stop global warming but we can make the process slower. This way we have time to adjust to the new climatic changes.


Let's make the world a better place to live.
07-10-2015 12:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
KeiranK wrote:We can't stop global warming but we can make the process slower.

Oh really? What is the Global Warming process exactly and how can "we" slow it?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-10-2015 12:30
KeiranKProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
IBdaMann wrote:
KeiranK wrote:We can't stop global warming but we can make the process slower.

Oh really? What is the Global Warming process exactly and how can "we" slow it?

The process: Global warming describes the current rise in the average temperature of Earth's air and oceans.
We, humans...the wise and intelligent species, contribute to global warming by increasing the greenhouse effect.

How to slow it down: Drive your car less! (just a clue, I think you got the big picture)

Read more
it's actually useful. http://education.nationalgeographic.com/encyclopedia/global-warming/


Let's make the world a better place to live.
Edited on 07-10-2015 12:43
07-10-2015 13:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
KeiranK wrote:The process: Global warming describes the current rise in the average temperature of Earth's air and oceans.

What makes you think the average temperature of the earth's air and oceans is rising?

KeiranK wrote:We, humans...the wise and intelligent species, contribute to global warming by increasing the greenhouse effect.

I'm intrigued. How do we do that?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-10-2015 16:44
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Wildfires fires can be caused by lightening. Wildfires can be caused by humans being careless with a cigarette or a campfire. The fact that past episodes of climate change were not caused by humans doesn't mean that this one can't be.

Different factors can trigger climate change episodes. Milankovitch cycles can trigger them, then positive feedback adds greenhouse gases to the mix (for example, the initial warming melts sea ice which results in the planet absorbing more heat which then releases peat decay gases). Climate change can also be triggered by CO2, as in the current case. And then eventually we reach that tipping point and non-manmade CO2 sources add in, like in the past they did with Milankovitch cycles.

Some climate change episodes were triggered by massive epochs of volcanic eruptions, unlike anything humans have seen. Where I live, there are lava flows 4000 feet thick and 40 miles long. They are about 20 million years old. Not exactly your typical Hawaiian eruption.
07-10-2015 19:55
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Has everyone forgotten the acid rain of the 1960's through 90's which plagued many regions of the northern hemisphere on both continents? Wasn't that man-made climate change? After all, the acidifcation of the rain and snow was due to suflides being spewed from industrial smoke stacks, wasn't it?



Since 1998, Harvard University wraps some of the bronze and marble statues on its campus, such as this "Chinese stele", with waterproof covers every winter, in order to protect them from erosion caused by acid rain and acid snow.

Edited on 07-10-2015 19:58
07-10-2015 21:02
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
What makes you think the average temperature of the earth's air and oceans is rising?


Atmospheric and oceanic measurements of temperature from all over the world, made for over the past > 100 years.
07-10-2015 22:04
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Sorry folks, but I must agree with IBdaMann on this one.

I've consulted the following definitive authoritative text on this subject Four Seasons In A Year, by that world renowned climatologist Rehanaqaderi:

http://www.storyjumper.com/book/index/15768042/Four-Seasons-in-a-year#page/6

On page 6 it clearly states:

"In summer time the days are hot. Ice cool drinks I drink a lot. At the beach girls wear bathing suits and boys wear shorts."

As you can clearly see, while it does state that the days are hot, there's no mention of rising temperatures here. I think that says it all.
08-10-2015 02:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: Has everyone forgotten the acid rain of the 1960's through 90's which plagued many regions of the northern hemisphere on both continents? Wasn't that man-made climate change?

What does acid rain have to do with "climate."

Just out of curiosity, do you have anything to suggest that acid rain has been warming?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2015 02:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
I once recall a statement made during a graduate chemistry course lecture I attended while enrolled at Syracuse University. The lecturing professor was Dr. Donald C. Dittmer who was the leading world authority on sulfur at the time, and by whom I was employed as a research assistant. The work I did as his assistant resulted in the following publication (I'm the Mitchell, R.B.):

Gramza, J.; Mitchell, R. B.; Dittmer, D. C. Two New Oxaselenoles from Desyl Selenocyanate. J. Org. Chem., 1984, 49(11), 2057-2058.

In his opening remarks that day, he declared:

"I'm afraid I must inform you that it is raining acid outside, and not the good kind."

How correct he was.


Professor Donald C. Dittmer (1927-2013)
Edited on 08-10-2015 02:40
08-10-2015 02:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:
What makes you think the average temperature of the earth's air and oceans is rising?


Atmospheric and oceanic measurements of temperature from all over the world, made for over the past > 100 years.

Did you notice you didn't supply any? All you really told us was that you have faith that such valid datasets exist for making such determinations, whereas the reality is that there aren't, as your post illustrates.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2015 03:17
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Perhaps we should seek guidance from the one and only true Data:

08-10-2015 04:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Perhaps we should seek guidance from the one and only true Data:

One day in the somewhat recent past, I was working on a project involving a complex data system. The path from data collection to final product was rather involved and the lead suggested developing a chart showing that flow. His thought was to title it "A Day in the Life of Data."

I couldn't help but mention that there was already an episode for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezsy3OSy1fU


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2015 04:37
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Now, getting back to Ben-ove's original question in this thread, yes, there have been warming and cooling periods in the past. However, we have yet to document any warming periods which occurred so quickly, with so much momentum, and over such a short period (i.e. - natural fluctuations occur much slower). It's that rapidity of this current event which is one of the hallmarks for it being man-made.
Edited on 08-10-2015 04:37
08-10-2015 07:45
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Did you notice you didn't supply any?


Would you like to lead by example, and supply some data to back up your statements of 'faith'?
08-10-2015 10:02
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
How about we look at what an expert on earth's climate history says?

The short 24 minute lecture below on the history of earth's climate is from the National Academy of Sciences 2015 Symposium by Professor Richard Alley - Geoscientist/Glaciologist. Anyone who has seen ice core graphs, has probably seen graphs based on his work.

Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth's Climate History: The Role of CO2



Professor Richard Alley - Curriculum Vitae
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/defau...long_aug13.pdf


08-10-2015 10:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote:How about we look at what an expert on earth's climate history says?

Why would anyone want the opinion of religious clergy on something that doesn't exist in science? I'll care about that after I get an expert's opinion on how sins affect my soul.

Ceist wrote: The short 24 minute lecture below ...

In short, just come to my church on Sunday and listen to my minister's sermon.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2015 12:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Gosh, it's so difficult to decide:


Professor Richard Alley's CV shows his qualifications, experience and published research:
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Alley_vita_long_aug13.pdf



IBdaMann's CV shows his 'qualifications', experience and err....'research':





Edited on 08-10-2015 12:45
08-10-2015 16:13
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Ceist, shame on you... though it is quite funny.

Actually, it'd be nice to think that anyone who had a CV like that would automatically understand about warming gases.

Oh well, sometimes we can't see the evidence (or smell it) even when it's right in front of our eyes.

Edited on 08-10-2015 16:18
08-10-2015 17:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: Oh well, sometimes we can't see the evidence (or smell it) even when it's right in front of our eyes.

Because "evidence" is the stuff of "The Science."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2015 17:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Finally, now there's a statement that actually makes sense!

Thank you IBdaMann.



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
08-10-2015 18:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Thank you IBdaMann.

You bet. Anytime!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2015 23:57
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
Ceist, shame on you... though it is quite funny.

Actually, it'd be nice to think that anyone who had a CV like that would automatically understand about warming gases.

Oh well, sometimes we can't see the evidence (or smell it) even when it's right in front of our eyes.


One other explanation is that he is actually an alien from some alternate universe where the laws of physics and chemistry are very different. Or perhaps he has been stranded on Earth by his mothership and that's why he is so sad, lonely and angry. Maybe the atmosphere on his home planet was mostly methane and his world was very dark, so the only way he could survive on Earth was to find somewhere dark where he could breathe methane and feel some level of comfort.



Edited on 09-10-2015 23:58
10-10-2015 01:19
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Ceist, what do think... separated at birth maybe?

10-10-2015 02:21
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
Ceist, what do think... separated at birth maybe?


After many years of separation (and insertion of cranium into rectum), maybe more like this?





Edited on 10-10-2015 02:23
10-10-2015 02:22
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)


Oh goodness, I needed to have a good laugh!

Dam, that just hurts to look at.
Edited on 10-10-2015 02:24
10-10-2015 02:29
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:


Oh goodness, I needed to have a good laugh!

Dam, that just hurts to look at.
.

It's not surprising he's so cranky all the time.

So perhaps you could be kinder and amend your non-response to:

NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner with a tube of hemorrhoid ointment!



Edited on 10-10-2015 02:32




Join the debate One question:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Physics of climate change question525-11-2017 05:27
The Emissivity Question5522-06-2017 23:01
Question1223-05-2017 23:05
Just one simple question3604-01-2017 17:58
Maybe I'll understand you if we take this topic one question at a time?1505-10-2016 13:32
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact