Slashdot Mirror
Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data
An anonymous reader writes, "We've known since 2004 that the past 440,000 years have shown atmospheric carbon dioxide levels varying between about 200 and 300 ppmv, the difference in extremes being the difference between advancing ice sheets and our current clime. In 2005 the data were analyzed back to 650,000 years and were found to be much the same — Al Gore was proud to be able to show that then-new analysis in his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth. Now all 800,000 years of the ice column have been analyzed, and the data show much the same pattern, according to the researcher: 'When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range' — to 380 ppmv."
"You mean, we have no idea how to properly predict climatology? Any changes we attempt to make may be a moot point, because the planet in the end may have complete control?"
The climate scientists do appear to be making predictions. Those predictions aren't pleasant. Further, they are making these predictions based -- now -- on 800,000 years worth of ice core data (rather than ~600K years of data as before). There are other indicators, from tree ring data to a range of species from warmer regions migrating up north and down south as temperatures change. And then there's all that glacial freshwater being dumped into the sea due to arctic warming, as well as unprecedented permafrost melts.
There's plenty of data to back the assertion that human activity is the cause for increasing CO2 density in the atmosphere. --M
Carbon dioxide that's generated from metabolic proccesses come from carbon present in what we eat. Since all our food get's its carbon in turn from the air (plants via photosynthesis, animals via eating plants), the total carbon in the system remains in balance.
This is the same reason why biofuels aren't considered a greenhouse gas contributor - it takes as much carbon from the air to produce them as they release when burned.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
As usual, what's good for the environment/consumer/voter takes a back seat to politicians' special interests.
I don't know any libertarian who believes that oil or the Earth will last forever. What they do belive is that government interference is uncessary in dealing with the energy supply. If we start to run out of oil, prices will go up and encourage the development of alternative energy supplies (something all the billions government has poured into bloated programs has failed to do).
As for the global warming hype, check out the real inconvenient truth
Both the movie and the book An Inconvenient Truth were carbon neutral (via purchase of wind power carbon credits from NativeEnergy). According to various interviews, Gore also has offset his personal carbon consumption.
Using public transit is a good thing, but it's not a realistic option for everyone (particularly celebrities, given how the rest of us react to them).
By going Carbon Neutral in his personal life and business ventures, Gore is personally doing as much to fight global warming as anyone can reasonably do. I'm not going to judge him based on whether he uses compact fluorescent bulbs in his laundry room.
Steven Milloy, founder of Junkscience isn't exactly an above-board type of person. I mean he was trying to give you a hint by calling his site "junk science", but I guess that was too subtle. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
well, that's certainly a lot of fallacies in one post!
2 1337 4 u!
What are you trying to disprove? I already stated that "water is needed", my point was that soil is not needed.
Please try reading next time. kthx.
What the fuck was Al Gore doing to combat this when he was in power?
Urging the world to adopt the Kyoto Accords, maybe?
Sadly, subsurface nuclear detonations won't do bugger all for you. I seem to recall 7th Form Physics saying that a decent sized Nuke, if detonated inside a block of ice, will only melt a sphere about 15 metres (or so) in diameter, such is the specific heat capacity of water.
:)
Of course, if it's not buried deepish, it'll also make a fairly decent crater, and irradiate the sirface for miles.
But the principle remains the same: you aren't doing yourself any favours by trying to melt ice, or frozen gasses with Nukes.
No, far better (but less easy!) to use Nukes to create craters on NMOs (Near Mars Objects), or Asteroids (preferabl;y water bearing ones) and then use those craters as rough rocket nozzles to direct nuclear blasts such that you can bombard Mars with thousands of asteroids for a few hundred years. That'll raise the surface temperature, provide much needed gases, and if you timed them right, and had them strike at the right angle, you'd be able to decrease the periodicity of Mars, and reduce the day down to 24 hours. That extra time past midnight will be a real stinker.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
We have warmer temperatures. Higher CO2 could be an effect more than a cause. Anthropogenic CO2 is averages about 80 g/m3/yr. Rain is 800 kg/m2/yr. 1e4 times more is likely to have a much bigger effect. CO2 might even have a cooling effect if it increases cloud nucleation and increases albeido.
For those actually paying attention, there is no "ongoing debate" in scientific circles over human influence in climate change. The only people "debating" it are the conservative politicians and anti-environmentalist special interest groups, in order to seed doubt and to prevent any action to be taken.
Which "developing countries? As far as I can tell, the only developing countries that have not signed the Kyoto Protocol are the US and Australia.
Look at the map and list of List of Kyoto Protocol signatories. China, Russia, the EU, all of South America, Canada, Asia (inc both N. & S. Korea) have all signed and ratified the treaty. That means that those countries will be reducing their emissions to 55% of their 1990 levels.
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
It seems to me that, contrary to your strawman version of their claims, the realclimate article has a very valid point. Reading that summary, and also the linked references to published papers on the topic, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation: In the past carbon dioxide has not been the initial cause of climate changes, but rather a feedback mechanism. That is, Milankovitch cycles cause some initial warming. Warming is known to cause the oceans to be less able to sequester carbon, and hence carbon dioxide levels tend to rise when the planet warms. Once this initial kickstart has produced more atmospheric carbon dioxide (which takes, apparently, around 600 to 1200 years) a feedback cycle ensues with the increased levels of carbon dioxide producing yet more warming. The resulting warming continues for a period of around 4200 years, during which carbon dioxide is very likely to be a factor.
This seems very reasonable - one would hardly expect atmospheric carbon dioxide to necessarily be the initial driver for warming given that, historically anyway, there wasn't anything (other than warming) that could cause a significant enough change in atmospheric carbon dioxide to induce warming. Just because the intergalicials required orbital variation to kick off the warming and start the process of carbon dioxide induced warming hardly invalidates carbon dioxide potentially being a factor in warming. Rather, the burden of proof lies more with those who claim it doesn't: we know that atmospheric carbon dioxide, due to its absorption spectra, will trap heat by allowing incoming energy from the sun to pass (due to wavelength) while trapping and radiating back the reflected heat energy from the earth (due to its different waverlength to that of incoming energy from the sun); what is need is an explanation of why that effect is either of no significance, or why it in fact does not occur for some reason. No one has provided such an explanation.
In summary, instead of, as you claim, "...to them, apparently, man made CO2 causes instant warming, but natural CO2 takes up to 800 years to have an effect", it is the opposite: to them man made carbon dioxide can cause carbon dioxide levels to change and precede warming effects, but natural changes in carbon dioxide levels require warming to occur and thus lag behind warming events from other causes (such as Milankovitch cycles).
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Evolution doesn't work that way. First off, human evolution became stalled the moment we started making our environment adapt to us, instead of adapting to it. So saying "humans will evolve into X in Y years" is innacurate - it assumes that we'll start changing to suit the environment we're living in by then, instead of doing the opposite.
Second, "revolve" isn't a valid concept, in the same way "devolve" isn't - evolution isn't linear progression. This however is a very common misperception, so you can't be blamed for not knowing it.
Now, a human growing up in a low-g environment might certainly face developmental problems. Ie, you hit growth spurts in puberty and reach a height of 7 feet tall. But that isn't evolution, as there is no genetic componant.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Care to cite a source on this? The whole region (the Sahara) was much greener in the past, this is true, but desertification started long before the advent of agriculture, and has been creeping along for the last 30,000 years or so. Egypt, at least as long as it has held civilization, always been mostly desert, which is why the largest population centers there (now, and thoughout history) have been next to the Nile. Also do a brief refresher of Egyption mythology to see the importance of annual Nile flooding for their agriculture thoughout the ages. 60,000 years ago Egypt indeed might have been more grassy than today, or even 30,000 years ago, but it changed previous to the advent of heavy agriculture.
I think Brazil is doing much better ecologically than we are, even if this "risk" to topsoil is real. Top soil can be managed through intelligent farming techniques, it can even be retained and replenished thanks to modern farming technology. Even fertilizers can be used to replenish mineral and nitrogen content of the soil, and while if used unintelligently this can lead to enviromental impacts, this is not a necissary consiquence.
In the end, the enviromental consiquences of ethenol is much much less than using fossil fuel (which, BTW, has nothing to do with dinosaurs, or even prehistoric fauna, it is the result of ancient, but much after dinosaurs, swamps and boglands decaying).
I really don't see how Brazil is destroying their economy. All indicators say that their succesfully applying a socialist model to it, with great results. Granted, their not quite up to "first world" standards, but in light of the region, and history, they're doing great for an progressive emerging economy.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
good thing they found water on mars. No, just kidding, but seriously, there's water on mars.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I would have to disagree. Aside from the simple correlction of timing of changes, and accounting of carbon dioxide emissions, there is the analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. In summary, by measuring the ratios of different carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, and knowing that carbon from fossil fuels will have different isotope ratios than carbon from natural sources, it is possible to establish how much of the recent change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are due to human activities through burning of fossil fuels. The results are that the rise in carbon dioxide levels of the past 200 years are almost entirely anthropogenic.
I have never seen any credible evidence to support the counter claim that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is not due to human activity. It is true that in terms of the total carbon dioxide produced in the carbon cycle, human produced carbon dioxide is just a fraction, but if I have a tank that is draining water at 10 liters per minute and having water added at 10 liters per minute then adding more water, even at a small fraction of that rate, will cause the otherwise stable tank to overflow. In terms of change human factors are very relevant, and quoting other figures about total carbon produced is, while accurate, disingenuous and misleading with regard to the actual issue at hand.
Well this isn't something that can be "proved", but in terms of history (last 800,000 years) we are in the middle of an interglacial which peaked some time ago, so we shouldn't be expecting further increases in temperature from the galcial/interglacial cycles. From a more recent historical perspective (last 200 years or so) the recent warming is quite unprecedented according to almost all historical temperature reconstructions (and there are many). In terms of our current understanding of climate and all the things that could effect it, without including atmospheric carbon dioxide changes, we cannot properly account for the present warming. That is, to the best of our current knowledge the warming is not natural. That could change, but we would have to learn some significant new informnation to change our understanding of the climate for that to occur.
As noted above, recent increases in carbon dioxide levels are the only way to account for the recent warming given our curent understanding of climate. Also noted above is the fact that human activity has been a major factor in increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. If you want more details on how attribution of recent warming has been determined so far the IPCC TAR attribution chapter is a good place to start - it summarises a number of different studies using a variety of techniques to attempt to determine the most likely factors driving the current warming.
That is certainly being worked on. I'll again refer to the IPCC TAR for a figure showing various radiative forcings, which is to say factors affecting global warming (both positive anmd negative effects). There are several besides atmospheric carbon dioxide. One of the most s
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
If you aren't in the room you don't need them on. And just do it with a switch. Many of those motion sensors draw more power than you want for no good reason. When you enter the room, flip the switch, when you leave, flip it again. Simple yes?
Seriously Unless the machine is actually doing something (and the screensaver doesn't count) then turn it off. I don't care what rumour you heard that powering off your pc at night is bad it isn't and it doesn't help to keep it running 24/7. Those of you who are stuck with bad admin policies (updates that run at 2am at the office) get it changed. Point out to your bosses that PCs can be made to shut down or power up automatically and that updates can be set for just before or after work meaning that the machines can in fact be off most of the night to save power, and money, and the earth.
There is no reason to keep any electronic goods running (or even plugged in) unless they are in use. You will find that many things (e.g. the TV and DVD player) still use a nontrivial amount of power even when they are "off". Many systems that use remotes constantly draw power to wait for the remotes. You might put said systems on a power strip and then switch the strip off when you are out of the room. After all if you can't be troubled to come and turn them on mechanically then you need to work on laziness.
This is especially an issue for AC/DC converters. Most AC/DC converters (the small boxen that come with lamps, cellphones, palm pilots, etc. continue to draw full power even when nothing is attached. Even if the phone is not being charged the AC/DC converter is drawing power and then dissipating it as heat. Unplugging those (or just putting them on a power strip and turning it off) can save a large amount of money and environment over time.
At one point I managed to halve my electricity bill simply by aggressively attaching devices to power strips and unplugging unused AC adapters. It turns out that the TV/VCR/DVD-Player collectively used about the same amount of power when they were "off" as when they were on. Just a single power strip and some good habits saved me some serious money.
Those of you who get the daily latte, get a to-go cup. If you are spending $2.50 a day on caffene you can probably spend $10 once on a permanent cup. If you go to most places you will even get a discount for doing so.
Changing the oil and jkeeping the car tuned up also keeps the gas mileage up. Cars that are out of tune or filled with gunk tend to run rich and burn excess oil and gas throwing up more pollution than necessary and fouling the earth heavily.
I know that many of us don't have the luxury of purchasing a new prius, but some do. Those of you who have a hummer just break down and get an electric car for the daily drive. At 8am noone cares what kind of car you arrive in and if you have to have the truck to impress the girls do it in Friday night. Noone cares about a hummer on Wednesday morning anyway.
Never underestimate the power of a large number of small things. We keep looking for the magic single act. We forget that what got us here was not one act but many and what keeps us here is not outside forces but inside habits. Change the habits and you change the world. Even if your neighbor still drives his dumbass hummer your changed habits will still be good.
Let me be the one this time to point out that it's completely irrelevant, as explained here.
mt
True, but that's offset somewhat by the need for more specialized equiptment. Plus, if you want to be really self-sufficient, you'd need to provide your own nutrient solution. Hydroponics may get around the need for soil, but I wouldn't assume it's much easier to do on Mars.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Well, and of course, there's the inconvenient fact that in order to get the yields one needs to support a ethanol-based economy, the corn fields in question need a large amount of artificial fertilizers which come from (you guessed it) fossil fuels (And, yes, I grew up in an Illinois farming community, so I do know a thing or two about growing corn and where fertilizers come from). In reality, it's not clear that switching to an ethanol-based economy would decrease our dependence on fossil fuels (it might switch us to greater use of natural gas over crude, but we're starting to have depletion issues in that supply department, as well). In reality, the sooner we can switch over to fully electric vehicles that get their initial energy supply from wind, hydro, or nuclear power, the better off we're going to be. The hydrocarbons remaining underground are far too precious as materials feedstocks to be wasted burning them in our cars.
That is all.
Before irrigation, Egypt was green. GREEN! Now it's a fucking desert.
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the kind of falsely alarmist crap that's causing so many people to be skeptical of the environmental movement.
Egypt and the surrounding desert was green about 6,000 BP because of an period of unusually heavy precipitation in the region called the Neolithic Subpluvial. It supported agriculture in what is now desert, yes, and also a pastoral economy. Desertification resumed about 5,000 BP not because of these activities -- there were, for example, no forests to cut down -- but because the rain stopped. (And this was also not due to human activity, which was at a relatively low level at the time.) Agriculture in the Nile Valley has ever since, and until the construction of the dams at Aswan, been reliant on the annual Nile flood. This flood irrigates fields all by itself, without human intervention. There was a degree of artificial irrigation, true, but it had little effect on the progress of desertification.
Stick to the truth; you'll be more convincing.
And the brethren went away edified.
OTOH, [plants] also require loads of sunlight, water and soil
Mean distances from Sun:
Mars:Earth ratio of sunlight per square metre: 1:1.542^2 = 1:2.378
The sunlight issue alone is not all that difficult - a sealed environment with sufficient biomass and prudent management could be brought into range by an arrangement of lenses and mirrors. Now you might say that if you're talking about a sealed environment, you can do that on Earth too, but let's see how long your environment remains sealed when you have crowds of starving, desperate people on the outside of your bubble.
RealClimate blatantly states that it is based on the argument that for some unknown reason something besides CO2 causes 800 years of warming, and then suddenly that unknown cause goes away and CO2 causes 4200 years of warming, but then just stops causing warming when it's at it's highest concentration for no apparent reason and we drop into another ice age. Linking to non-reviewed papers by members of the team that produce the website isn't exactly what I call resounding proof.
...everything stops...
Also you demonstrate that you have no idea how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It does not "reflect back" the heat. If anything, it absorbs more heat in the upper atmoshphere, preventing it from ever reaching the ground. That additional heat slows convection which is the major method of heat dispersion in the atmosphere. It also requires that the upper atmosphere rise in temperature much faster than the lower atmosphere, which every computer climate model shows. However, it isn't happening in the real atmosphere, a fact which is blatantly overlooked by the climate prediction group.
So, in your model, we have a low CO2 atmosphere, which is warmed by a Milankovitch cycle. Over 800 years, the Earth thaws, and CO2 is added to the atmosphere, but incredibly slowly. It takes 800 years to bump up enough CO2 to reach a tipping point, where the sun becomes unimportant to the cycle and temperature starts to rise because of CO2, which causes more CO2 to flood into the atmosphere (although at the same slow rate, despite insistence by current climate scientists that CO2 increase causes a positive feedback and exponential heating.) Now the CO2 reaches its highest level of 10,000 years and...
The Earth plunges back into an ice age.
So, by this theory, warming isn't caused by CO2, but then it is, and then finally CO2 causes rapid cooling. So, if CO2 goes up, and it warms up, then CO2 causes global warming, but if CO2 goes up and it cools down, then CO2 causes global warming. If global warming is happening we'll have more hurricanes, if we have fewer hurricanes, that's because of global warming too. In other words, the theory is non-falsifiable. There's a name for non-falsifiable theories. It's called religion.
Sigh. In your own last paragraph, you contradict the first two. "man made carbon dioxide can cause carbon dioxide levels to change and precede warming effects" -- Okay, CO2 causes warming when it's man made, but -- "natural changes in carbon dioxide levels require warming to occur and thus lag behind warming events from other causes" -- so you agree with my original point. Mann is schizophrenic when it comes to CO2.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
It's actually worse than the other way around.
The 'normal' glacial-interglacial cycle appears to be driven largely by changes in summer insolation tipping off ice melting in the northern hemisphere, which leads to a rapid decrease in albedo and hence feedback. Changes in CO2 concentration appear to be caused by these changes and act to 'fix' the deglaciated state.
So what you are looking at is confirmation that increasing temperatures lead to additional feedbacks.