I absolutely do not intend to be disrespectful, but I will be tongue in cheek, if you are consumed with fear then regardless of the source, the fear is real and should be treated as such... if for no other reason than because others are watching who need to be reassured.
You assert that the change is unprecedented. The Vostoc ice core data brings the assertion that the change is unprecedented into question; anyone can look at the graphs and see three similar periods where the relationships between temperature, CO2 and methane are astonishingly similar. I therefore present data to challenge your assertion.. Your assertion is basic to your argument. By inspection it is flawed. The Vostoc data shows that CO2 lags temperature change by about 500-800 years and therefore cannot be the cause of Global Climate Change. It then follows that if CO2 is not the cause of Climate change then anthropogenic CO2 which is only 3% and indistinguishable from natural CO2 can not then be then cited as the cause. Beyond that the ice cores demonstrate the cyclivity and similarity in periods to 450,000 BP and to extrapolate anthropogenic forces of any kind in those similar cycles is absurd.
Not only is your first premise flawed the next assertion that there is some logical reason to estimate and compare and contrast volcanic contribution of CO2 verses anthropogenic contribution is a non sequitur and proves nothing
Just because you assert and you have leaped to a flawed conclusion doesn't make it an impressive launching point for more pseudo science. Yes the ice melts, yes the climate changes, yes we get old and die. You can't pin climate change on humans with out data. you are just going to have to understand the phenomena and adjust or you can get hysterical about something that that is natural and can't be changed.
There are some serious assertions in the lionked document that don't hold up to either data or analysis. The believers are trying too hard to push the ideology and it has become political as the scientific arguments fall apart. I am not impressed with the weight of paper supporting a flawed concept. In addition to the simple clarity of the science in the "big picture" above. I sense you need to get into the short term data and have me further address the hysterical more modern real time asertions. Mind you it doesn't change the big picture but simply gives grounds for additional pause.
I use this document as a foundation of the following response.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
#1 CO2 is a green house gas this fact is undisputable. You accuse rational people ( your deniers) of ignoring physics... the evidence is contrary. When you understand the physics and read what you asserted your assertions again do not follow. Discussing CO2 . The mechanism is through the absorption of discrete frequencies of infrared and then re radiation of the same wavelengths in all directions but largely because of the blanket effect the return is back to the earth.. We know what the absorption frequencies are and at the present levels of CO2 the frequencies are already saturated. This happens at about 10 meters. They are already absorbing reflecting 100% of the radiation in their frequencies. . The absorption frequencies are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers and only represent 8% of black body radiation energy. If you double the concentration 100% absorption happens at 5 Meters. Your Venus analogy is very interesting but not particularly helpful in understanding the physics it is again a non-sequitur and unimpressive. As the amount of CO2 increases the bandwidth of radiation increases but it increases logarithmically and therefore any increase in CO2 over 100PPMV results in a non-linear increase in absorption.
The model that the IPPC uses is the no-feedback warming but the actual warming that occurs is the combination of no-feedbacks and combined and the constant temperature change due to feedbacks. The model really hasn't provided good correlation to
Wow! Where do you get your data? You have been radicalized! First of all relax take a deep breath. You will be OK. This temperature change has actually happened cyclically and we have data. So your fear that the heating up is something new and out of control is not the case. Your main assertions are not based in fact (and I have included the cite) so your conclusions are flawed. This should please you because your hysteria is by logic of a flawed premise not warranted. You are free!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg Read the graph!
Don't mix up cause with correlation. On the graph cited it shows three cycles and humans were not the cause because 16,000 years ago when the temperature started to rise there weren't enough of them in the world to populate Maine at its present human density. This smashes the concept that humans were responsible for this cycle or the ones before.
So if humans weren't responsible what about all of the CO2 we are pushing up into the atmosphere? It is only logical that it must have some effect on warming. Right? Well maybe. The data suggests that you are overstating the effect of the relatively small contribution. As a percentage of the total contribution human contribution is about 3.8%. We are only important to us.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
You seem to think that we can and should DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. That depends on what it is. Global warming or climate change? These are huge natural forces at work as our planet goes through an aging process which you my friend or the Congress can't stop. Kind of like voting to stop the daily tides. If you want to promote a vote to keep the tide out be my guest but please don't do something that will hurt our quality of life for no effect.
So in a couple of paragraphs I have given you enough information and cites to suggest that your assertions are not true, climate change is natural and is like the tide not much we can do about it.
To those who predict Noahs flood you could ruin their day by showing the data of 450,000 years of ice cores that through several cycles the Antarctic ice has remained and to really make a point look up the Beacon Valley Pliocene ice ( one two or eight million year old ice!) or the 750,000 year old Arctic perma frost.
ï It may be inconvenient to inject data into a fantasy discussion, if so excuse me. Let us not get hysterical, but cut to the chase. It doesn't make much sense to make a decision on CO2 unless we have some consensus on which facts are relevant. Discussing the CO2 contribution of volcanoes as compared to anthropogenic contribution is interesting but not very useful. (one volcanic eruption put square miles of ash into the air and in less than a year cooled the earth one half degrees Celsius. Now that is climate change power! http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/volcano.htm [nasa.gov] http://www.cas.org/newsevents/connections/volcanoes.html [cas.org] ) To get a useful perspective we need to consider all of the natural sources of CO2 and compare that number against the anthropogenic. This following article takes the position that our contribution is not significant. It has cites. I chose it of many just because I like the notebook style. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html [geocraft.com] If you do not accept this data then what data will you propose we accept? Cites please. It has to pass a reasonableness criterion. From a position of consensus on the data we should be in a position to debate possible action..
Since when did scientists âoevoteâ on science? One scientist can move ahead the understanding in the back of an envelope.
Politics has hijacked science many times . Please examine the cited graph and explain the cyclivity demonstrated over the past 450,000 years in terms of human anthropogenic causes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
If you are able to take the leap that what we are looking at is a cycle then the hysterics are amusing. Too bad we are shooting ourselves in the foot over this new religion. Not unlike predicting Noahâ(TM)s flood based upon each dayâ(TM)s rising tide.
For those who fear that this one time, in spite of all evidence it should be comforting to know that if the same hysterical predictions came to pass in the last three cycles we would not be examining 450,000 year old ice in Antarctica, 750,000 year old perma- frost in the arctic and possibly Permian aged ice in the Beacon Valley in Antarctica.
I think that there is a large strategy to feed disinformation to the public.A disinformed public is allowed to vote and unfortunately fantasy decsions have real world consequences. Also not unlike the concept of the earth being the center of the universe. Poor GALELEO!
It is impossible to be an intellectual and an ideologue at the same time. Intellectuals are always improving their understanding of the "way things work." Ideologues protect their ideology and are therefore left behind in a fantasy world. Unfortunately fantasy world decisions have real world consequences.
Climate studies have come a long way in the past 35 years. Paleo- climatology stems from geology and this anthropogenic theory started in the 1970's. At that time anthropogenics pretty much flew in the face of the Milankovitch theory which attempts to explain and predict large scale climate cycles. That is not to assert that anthropogenic climate effects do not exist but the question at hand is identifying the significant driving force for the larger and demonstrable climate cycles. The debate is on.
Unfortunately there is a political component to the debate which attempts to protect the thesis of anthropogenic input being THE significant driving force of climate change. The length to which this ideology is being protected from contrary data is normal if you believe in Kahn's theory of Paradigm Shifts. Politics is a huge change agent. There are even websites run by political lobbying organizations purporting to be neutral and into the dialogue. Bla Bla Bla! Unfortunately for us, it appears as if significant economic decisions may be using poor science as a basis for very radical economic ideas. There is hubris in this because as we all are presently observing the economy is far more sensitive to manipulation than this "Chicken Little" ideology would predict. The fundamentals of economics are stochastic and contain huge multipliers. These relationships are ignored at our own peril. The negative multiplier effect of inefficient allocation of primary resources is being ignored in the rush to effect climate change. Having lost sight of our goal we are redoubling our efforts possibly down a dead end. It is not appropriate to put blinders on. It is a truth that"good" decisions result in good results. The analysis of a result must be across many factors and not self limited by any definition or discipline
Anyone who is interested in the climate cycles should be concerned that there is very little discussion by the anthropogenic "first and most" theorists of contrary information. In the 1960's these individuals would be described as being "radicalized", this is the tipping point where the mind is made up and no further contemplation will or can take place.
I believe that this graph speaks volumes. It is worth contemplating in light of the various positions in the debate. I don't believe the concept of INSULATION has been appropriately discussed in juxtaposition to the anthropogenic theories.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
Paradigm shifts are caused by "agents of change". Presently we are experiencing a predictable shift from science to ideology. The resulting decisions during this period will have real world consequences in that the basis is stagnant and therefore the decisions will not be optimized.
At some point after experiencing very negative consequences of a poor model's adaptation there may be a very negative political reaction to limited decision making processes that demonstrably cause us harm through poor predictability rather than suggest stochastic models across many disciplines to improve our quality of life.
Slashdot Mirror
I absolutely do not intend to be disrespectful, but I will be tongue in cheek, if you are consumed with fear then regardless of the source, the fear is real and should be treated as such... if for no other reason than because others are watching who need to be reassured. You assert that the change is unprecedented. The Vostoc ice core data brings the assertion that the change is unprecedented into question; anyone can look at the graphs and see three similar periods where the relationships between temperature, CO2 and methane are astonishingly similar. I therefore present data to challenge your assertion.. Your assertion is basic to your argument. By inspection it is flawed. The Vostoc data shows that CO2 lags temperature change by about 500-800 years and therefore cannot be the cause of Global Climate Change. It then follows that if CO2 is not the cause of Climate change then anthropogenic CO2 which is only 3% and indistinguishable from natural CO2 can not then be then cited as the cause. Beyond that the ice cores demonstrate the cyclivity and similarity in periods to 450,000 BP and to extrapolate anthropogenic forces of any kind in those similar cycles is absurd. Not only is your first premise flawed the next assertion that there is some logical reason to estimate and compare and contrast volcanic contribution of CO2 verses anthropogenic contribution is a non sequitur and proves nothing Just because you assert and you have leaped to a flawed conclusion doesn't make it an impressive launching point for more pseudo science. Yes the ice melts, yes the climate changes, yes we get old and die. You can't pin climate change on humans with out data. you are just going to have to understand the phenomena and adjust or you can get hysterical about something that that is natural and can't be changed. There are some serious assertions in the lionked document that don't hold up to either data or analysis. The believers are trying too hard to push the ideology and it has become political as the scientific arguments fall apart. I am not impressed with the weight of paper supporting a flawed concept. In addition to the simple clarity of the science in the "big picture" above. I sense you need to get into the short term data and have me further address the hysterical more modern real time asertions. Mind you it doesn't change the big picture but simply gives grounds for additional pause. I use this document as a foundation of the following response. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf #1 CO2 is a green house gas this fact is undisputable. You accuse rational people ( your deniers) of ignoring physics... the evidence is contrary. When you understand the physics and read what you asserted your assertions again do not follow. Discussing CO2 . The mechanism is through the absorption of discrete frequencies of infrared and then re radiation of the same wavelengths in all directions but largely because of the blanket effect the return is back to the earth.. We know what the absorption frequencies are and at the present levels of CO2 the frequencies are already saturated. This happens at about 10 meters. They are already absorbing reflecting 100% of the radiation in their frequencies. . The absorption frequencies are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers and only represent 8% of black body radiation energy. If you double the concentration 100% absorption happens at 5 Meters. Your Venus analogy is very interesting but not particularly helpful in understanding the physics it is again a non-sequitur and unimpressive. As the amount of CO2 increases the bandwidth of radiation increases but it increases logarithmically and therefore any increase in CO2 over 100PPMV results in a non-linear increase in absorption. The model that the IPPC uses is the no-feedback warming but the actual warming that occurs is the combination of no-feedbacks and combined and the constant temperature change due to feedbacks. The model really hasn't provided good correlation to
Wow! Where do you get your data? You have been radicalized! First of all relax take a deep breath. You will be OK. This temperature change has actually happened cyclically and we have data. So your fear that the heating up is something new and out of control is not the case. Your main assertions are not based in fact (and I have included the cite) so your conclusions are flawed. This should please you because your hysteria is by logic of a flawed premise not warranted. You are free! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg Read the graph! Don't mix up cause with correlation. On the graph cited it shows three cycles and humans were not the cause because 16,000 years ago when the temperature started to rise there weren't enough of them in the world to populate Maine at its present human density. This smashes the concept that humans were responsible for this cycle or the ones before. So if humans weren't responsible what about all of the CO2 we are pushing up into the atmosphere? It is only logical that it must have some effect on warming. Right? Well maybe. The data suggests that you are overstating the effect of the relatively small contribution. As a percentage of the total contribution human contribution is about 3.8%. We are only important to us. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html You seem to think that we can and should DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. That depends on what it is. Global warming or climate change? These are huge natural forces at work as our planet goes through an aging process which you my friend or the Congress can't stop. Kind of like voting to stop the daily tides. If you want to promote a vote to keep the tide out be my guest but please don't do something that will hurt our quality of life for no effect. So in a couple of paragraphs I have given you enough information and cites to suggest that your assertions are not true, climate change is natural and is like the tide not much we can do about it. To those who predict Noahs flood you could ruin their day by showing the data of 450,000 years of ice cores that through several cycles the Antarctic ice has remained and to really make a point look up the Beacon Valley Pliocene ice ( one two or eight million year old ice!) or the 750,000 year old Arctic perma frost.
ï It may be inconvenient to inject data into a fantasy discussion, if so excuse me. Let us not get hysterical, but cut to the chase. It doesn't make much sense to make a decision on CO2 unless we have some consensus on which facts are relevant. Discussing the CO2 contribution of volcanoes as compared to anthropogenic contribution is interesting but not very useful. (one volcanic eruption put square miles of ash into the air and in less than a year cooled the earth one half degrees Celsius. Now that is climate change power! http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/volcano.htm [nasa.gov] http://www.cas.org/newsevents/connections/volcanoes.html [cas.org] ) To get a useful perspective we need to consider all of the natural sources of CO2 and compare that number against the anthropogenic. This following article takes the position that our contribution is not significant. It has cites. I chose it of many just because I like the notebook style. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html [geocraft.com] If you do not accept this data then what data will you propose we accept? Cites please. It has to pass a reasonableness criterion. From a position of consensus on the data we should be in a position to debate possible action..
Since when did scientists âoevoteâ on science? One scientist can move ahead the understanding in the back of an envelope. Politics has hijacked science many times . Please examine the cited graph and explain the cyclivity demonstrated over the past 450,000 years in terms of human anthropogenic causes. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg If you are able to take the leap that what we are looking at is a cycle then the hysterics are amusing. Too bad we are shooting ourselves in the foot over this new religion. Not unlike predicting Noahâ(TM)s flood based upon each dayâ(TM)s rising tide. For those who fear that this one time, in spite of all evidence it should be comforting to know that if the same hysterical predictions came to pass in the last three cycles we would not be examining 450,000 year old ice in Antarctica, 750,000 year old perma- frost in the arctic and possibly Permian aged ice in the Beacon Valley in Antarctica. I think that there is a large strategy to feed disinformation to the public.A disinformed public is allowed to vote and unfortunately fantasy decsions have real world consequences. Also not unlike the concept of the earth being the center of the universe. Poor GALELEO!
Here is an interesting graph of a clearly cyclical system. What dose it tell us about our own perspective? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg Group psychosis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis.
It is impossible to be an intellectual and an ideologue at the same time. Intellectuals are always improving their understanding of the "way things work." Ideologues protect their ideology and are therefore left behind in a fantasy world. Unfortunately fantasy world decisions have real world consequences. Climate studies have come a long way in the past 35 years. Paleo- climatology stems from geology and this anthropogenic theory started in the 1970's. At that time anthropogenics pretty much flew in the face of the Milankovitch theory which attempts to explain and predict large scale climate cycles. That is not to assert that anthropogenic climate effects do not exist but the question at hand is identifying the significant driving force for the larger and demonstrable climate cycles. The debate is on. Unfortunately there is a political component to the debate which attempts to protect the thesis of anthropogenic input being THE significant driving force of climate change. The length to which this ideology is being protected from contrary data is normal if you believe in Kahn's theory of Paradigm Shifts. Politics is a huge change agent. There are even websites run by political lobbying organizations purporting to be neutral and into the dialogue. Bla Bla Bla! Unfortunately for us, it appears as if significant economic decisions may be using poor science as a basis for very radical economic ideas. There is hubris in this because as we all are presently observing the economy is far more sensitive to manipulation than this "Chicken Little" ideology would predict. The fundamentals of economics are stochastic and contain huge multipliers. These relationships are ignored at our own peril. The negative multiplier effect of inefficient allocation of primary resources is being ignored in the rush to effect climate change. Having lost sight of our goal we are redoubling our efforts possibly down a dead end. It is not appropriate to put blinders on. It is a truth that"good" decisions result in good results. The analysis of a result must be across many factors and not self limited by any definition or discipline Anyone who is interested in the climate cycles should be concerned that there is very little discussion by the anthropogenic "first and most" theorists of contrary information. In the 1960's these individuals would be described as being "radicalized", this is the tipping point where the mind is made up and no further contemplation will or can take place. I believe that this graph speaks volumes. It is worth contemplating in light of the various positions in the debate. I don't believe the concept of INSULATION has been appropriately discussed in juxtaposition to the anthropogenic theories. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg Paradigm shifts are caused by "agents of change". Presently we are experiencing a predictable shift from science to ideology. The resulting decisions during this period will have real world consequences in that the basis is stagnant and therefore the decisions will not be optimized. At some point after experiencing very negative consequences of a poor model's adaptation there may be a very negative political reaction to limited decision making processes that demonstrably cause us harm through poor predictability rather than suggest stochastic models across many disciplines to improve our quality of life.