Turtle Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 There you go. Granted, it's not *for ever*, but only for the last 650,000 years. The graph I saw was similar, but claimed just the opposite. Given all the threads here on the topic, I'd say it's no more worth looking for than expecting agreement. I bet if all the people talking about it shut up for a month, cooling would set in. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 But note that when it (carbon dioxide level) was really high, we were living in the ocean, and when it was moderately high but a lot higher than today, we were all reptiles and dinosaurs. In addition the sun's output was lower in the past. It has slowly, but steadily increased since it first turned on. I believe it was the broadly consistent temperatures over the lifetime of the planet that led James Lovelock to his Gaia hypothesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Page one Google news today In wake of latest climate report, calls mount for global responseChristian Science Monitor, MA - 11 hours agoFriday's release of a much-anticipated report on global warming from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in effect asks a profound ...Game over on global warming?Los Angeles Times, CA - Feb 5, 2007By Alan Zarembo, Times Staff Writer. A landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Friday, warns that there ... Alan Dupont: Scorched earth an insecure placeNEWS.com.au, Australia - 12 hours agoTHE measured prose and bland title of the latest UN report on climate change belie the gravity and significance of its key message: that the earth will soon ... Climate study may serve as a wake-up call for government, businessKansas City Star, MO - Feb 4, 2007By David Greising. CHICAGO - While the question of global warming was settled years ago for all but a few holdouts in the scientific community, the landmark ... We cannot let the Kyoto debacle happen againGuardian Unlimited, UK - Feb 3, 2007Open any newspaper and the chances are you'll find an item on climate change. Friday saw yet another flurry of coverage with the publication of the ... Scientist hopes climate study `makes a difference'Kansas City Star, MO - 6 hours agoBy Kyle Johnson. GRAND FORKS, ND - Andrei Kirilenko began his academic career in mathematics in Russia. About 20 years and one class from a very influential ... Grim global warming prognosis for Western US International group ...San Francisco Chronicle, CA - Feb 5, 2007Global warming has already led to rising sea levels and dramatic increases in temperature in the Arctic, and scientists warned Friday that its effects will ...Report spurs calls for aggressive action White House accepts ... San Francisco Chronicle, CA - Feb 3, 2007(02-03) 04:00 PST Washington -- The dire forecast by an international panel of scientists Friday that the Earth will warm and sea levels will continue to ...We've wrecked the weatherSydney Morning Herald, Australia - 9 hours agoSIR Nicholas Stern, author of a major report on the economic impact of global warming, says the latest review of the scientific evidence by United Nations' ... UN: We face disaster without drastic actionic Wales, UK - Feb 3, 2007THE most authoritative climate change study ever produced prompted new calls yesterday for political action to head off soaring global temperatures and ... Editorial: Decisive action needed on global warmingMilford Daily News, MA - 4 hours agoIn the movies, when a threat to the planet is discovered - a huge asteroid on a collision course with earth, for instance, or an interplanetary invasion ... Media Promote Global Warming FraudtheOneRepublic, CA - 22 hours agoby Cliff Kincaid [commentator] 2/6/07. When it comes to Iraq, our media have been preoccupied with the issue of whether there was adequate intelligence to ... Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes ...CNW Telbec (Communiqués de presse), Canada - 4 hours agoTORONTO, Feb. 5 /CNW/ - An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming ... Warm Or Not, It's A Climate Of Undercooked LegislationHuman Events, DC - 4 hours agoby William Murchison (more by this author). It's not the climate scientists we need to worry about in this time of global warming. ... Russian member of IPCC warns of climate change disasterKazinform, Kazakhstan - 5 hours agoST. PETERSBURG. February 6. KAZINFORM. - Climate change will pose serious problems as temperatures are expected to rise further in the 21st century, ... IS CLIMATE CHANGE FOR REAL?Free Market News Network, FL - 2 hours agoby Staff Selections. Does climate change caused by mankind even exist? My answer is "No." The idea is highly improbable. And I view its support by a panel ... UN’s Science by Committee Doesn’t WorkSt Petersburg Times, Russia, Russia - 12 hours agoBy Philip Stott. I confess I was afflicted by a profound world-weariness following the release Friday of the latest gloomy machinations from the ... US Officials Agree With Climate Change ReportSitNews, AK - 14 hours agoWashington - Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said the United States embraces the findings of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ... Media Promote Global Warming FraudAccuracy In Media, DC - 14 hours agoBy Cliff Kincaid | February 5, 2007. Now how many people read until almost the end of these articles to discover that the scientific evidence is not yet ... Political Science (from the Politics Blog)DetNews.com, MI - 5 hours agoWould you trust federal energy legislation that was written by Exxon-Mobil? No? Then you won't have much confidence in the process that just produced the ...The climate change trial - new indisputable evidence!Media Newswire (press release), NY - 17 hours agoThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the world's authoritative voice on climate change since it was established in 1988. ... Debate on climate change science is over - international political ...Media Newswire (press release), NY - 17 hours agoThe most comprehensive assessment of the science of climate change, published today, has confirmed that urgent international political action is needed if ... Global Warming HypocrisyGOPUSA, TX - 5 hours agoBy Henry Lamb. The up-tick in global warming propaganda in recent days is to set the stage for the release of the Fourth Assessment Report from the ... Game over on global warming?Sun-Sentinel.com, FL - 20 hours agoBy Alan Zarembo. A landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Friday, warns that there is so much carbon ...UN Report Confirms Human Activity to Blame for Earth’s Warming ClimateMen's News Daily, CA - 2 hours agoBy voanews. Top climate scientists have warned that global warming is here, it’s caused by human activity, and the impact including rising sea levels could ...Actions now can help curb global warmingStatesman Journal, OR - 16 hours agoThat global warming report released Friday by an international science panel ought to grab Americans' attention and shake us up. It's the most authoritative ... The Fraser Institute: Independent Summary Shows New UN Climate ...CCNMatthews (press release), Canada - 20 hours agoLONDON, UNITED KINGDOM--(CCNMatthews - Feb. 5, 2007) - An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific ...Man-made global warming real, worsening, says panel of top scientistsJackson Hole Star-Tribune, WY - Feb 4, 2007AP News. By SETH BORENSTEIN. AP science writer Monday, February 05, 2007. PARIS -- A long-awaited report says global warming is "very likely" man-made, ...Climate of OpinionOpinion Journal, NJ - Feb 4, 2007Last week's headlines about the United Nation's latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most ... UN Climate Change Report Refutes AlarmismScoop.co.nz (press release), New Zealand - Feb 4, 2007LONDON, UK—An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 The obvious problem is that if we 'go all green' on this, and avert the disaster, fifty years from now the others will say "so where's this Global Warming you were worrying about fifty years ago? You were wrong!... While this would be frustrating, I would rather deal with that frustration than with the slight feeling of validation I would get from being able to say "I told you so" as mankind suffers consequences of this:doh: I wonder how much evidence it will take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 I was curious about the methodology of gathering historic temperatures and I found this site that explains it nicely. They have a similar chart to what Buffy sipplied above, plus they have the raw data from the ice core. I think it would be a good Hypo project to do some analysis of that data here at Hypo, and see what we can see for ourselves as far as trends go. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Excellent idea Bill. Go straight to the research, avoid the politics.Another reference for those of us that appreciate a more down to earth explaination can be found at: Earth Observatory Feature: Paleoclimatology: Frozen in Time: the Ice Core Record Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Denke Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 Go straight to the research, avoid the politics.Collapsing ice sheets, thawing permafrost, shrinking glaciers and thinning sea ice are what we should be focusing on. This is a critical time in humanity's relationship with our planet. What's happening in the polar regions is a powerful, irrefutable demonstration of change on a global scale. The poles are changing even faster than we anticipated. We need to continue monitoring environmental change to understand what's happening to our planet. The Arctic should be ringed with scientific observatories. Warming is felt most sharply in the far North, where temperatures are rising twice as fast as the global average. Greenland, for example, lost as much ice in one year as is contained in all the Swiss Alps. Eventually there will be new shipping routes across the Arctic because polar sea ice is melting. That would halve shipping costs saving forty percent of the travel time from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. One way in which global warming might benefit us instead of harm us. Antarctica, meanwhile, is gaining ice in the center of the continent but losing large chunks around its fringes, contributing to sea-level rise. Our glaciers are sentinels of climate change, all of the glaciers in the tropics are retreating. In the Himalayas, twenty-two percent of the ice disappeared in the last four years. One glacier in the Peruvian Andes is likely to be gone within the next five years. Tanzania's famous Kilimanjaro peak will lose its remaining ice by 2015, if not before. This widespread retreat of mountain glaciers is our clearest evidence of global warming. It's too late for some of these glaciers. Millions of people are going to have to adapt to these changes, many of which will occur in some of the world's poorest regions. Global warming's impact also is becoming clear in the mountain areas of the American West. Average temperatures in the West have risen by two degrees Fahrenheit since the mid-1970s, twice as fast as the global warming rate. That's because much of the West lies above five thousand feet, and warming increases at higher elevations. Our high mountains are like the third pole of the planet. It's the world's coldest regions that are most susceptible to warming. Records are clearly showing this acceleration. Go straight to the research, avoid the politics. Global warming is for real. Garry W. DenkeGeologist/Geophysicist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 We need to continue monitoring environmental change to understand what's happening to our planet. The Arctic should be ringed with scientific observatories.I agree. The second International Polar Year (Actually 2 years, from March 2007 to March 2009) seems a step in this direction. Unlike the first one 125 years ago, which was noted for feats of athletic physical human exploration, this one promises to be much more high-tech gagety, with remote observation stations and unmanned vehicles managed from the comfort of university offices and labs. The socio-political pendulum seems at long last to be swinging away from global warming denial. I’m guardedly optimistic that it may be in time for the coming decades to be merely interesting, not catastrophic, times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 I was curious about the methodology of gathering historic temperatures and I found this site that explains it nicely. They have a similar chart to what Buffy sipplied above, plus they have the raw data from the ice core. I think it would be a good Hypo project to do some analysis of that data here at Hypo, and see what we can see for ourselves as far as trends go. BillOK, I return from the depths of Microsoft Excel with interpretation of the Vostok Ice Core sample. In the first chart I have taken the indicated temperature from one sample to the next and converted the rate of change to 100 years. This gives us an indication of the rate of change per 100 years for the past 400,000 years. You will note that around 250,000 years ago there is a noticeable change in trend from stability to instability, with increasing extreme cycles of change from then until present day. I would turn to someone better at math than myself, but the points on the chart where I am expanding to 100 years are more likely to yield large numbers than the points on the chart where I am reducing to 100 years. This would happen because micro trends will balance themselves out over a larger period, but when seen alone give the impression of a much larger change happening. That having been said, it is not unusual to see a 1C or 2C temperature change over a 100 year period, if the data represented by the ice core is to be believed. I found it curious that there was such an obvious difference over time. The data indicates that while grand changes in temperature have happened for the whole length of the core sample, the changes at the deepest end were much more gradual. The other observation that I made looking at the raw data is that while a sample was taken every meter of the core sample, the number of years that each meter represented grew as the samples were deeper. I know this is because the ice is really crushed snow, and the weight of the top makes the bottom level more compact. Thus more years per meter at the bottom than at the top. So I chose to graph this and see the trend. What I found was surprising. I am not sure the methods used for counting the years in the ice, but it seems that compacting is not the only variable or there would be clear trend. Other factors, such as annual snow fall must be a factor as well. And I image that on occasion there is also loss of surface snow in a given year when the local climate has the proper conditions. The inconsistency of the data makes me distrust the dating methods being applied to ice cores, and the dating is central to the "evidence" presented by analysis of those cores. Another thing that puzzles me is that in our current phase of global warming the temperatures in Antarctica have remained unchanged. Is the sampling method of deutrium and O18 in the ice as corallating to temperature true only locally or globally? Are we looking at Antarctica's temperature history of the worlds? And how does Antarctica's temerature relate to global temperature considering that they seem to be out of sync for the past 12 years as measured by direct methods? I would hope to have some of my skepticism cleared up by those who look at this and understand it better than I do. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maikeru Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Global warming's impact also is becoming clear in the mountain areas of the American West. Average temperatures in the West have risen by two degrees Fahrenheit since the mid-1970s, twice as fast as the global warming rate. That's because much of the West lies above five thousand feet, and warming increases at higher elevations. Our high mountains are like the third pole of the planet. It's the world's coldest regions that are most susceptible to warming. Records are clearly showing this acceleration. Go straight to the research, avoid the politics. Global warming is for real. Garry W. DenkeGeologist/Geophysicist From my own experience of living in Utah, this has seemed the case, and has done much to influence my opinions on global warming. Summers have gradually been getting hotter and hotter. Many winters have also been strangely warm. When I was a kid, it was not uncommon for temperatures to reach mid-90s to 100 F occasionally during July and August. For the last several years though, during the drought, temperatures rose to 100+ F weeks at a time. The highest I remember for one day last July was something like 106 or 107 F, which is what it's like in St. George, Utah. Central and northern Utah aren't normally supposed to be so hot (even though we're in the desert). At this time, it seems like our snowpack is melting faster than it should be... I remember seeing snow on the tops of mountains until April or June when I was a kid. We're located 4,000 ft or so above sea level here along the Wasatch. I wonder if we're heading for drought again. It lasted 6 years last time. But I'm not an expert in meterology or geology, so I'll just leave this as my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 EDITORIALThe EU steps up on climate change The European Union last week claimed global leadership in the fight against climate change. At a Brussels summit, the 27-nation bloc agreed to binding targets that would cut greenhouse-gas emissions, promote energy efficiency and encourage the use of renewable energy sources If the policies are implemented, then the EU will be in a position to push other countries to follow their lead. It is a big "if": The deal reached last weekend does not have "teeth" -- legally binding targets. The policies will differentiate between a real attempt to halt climate change and mere posturing. The scientific evidence that confirms the human impact on the global climate is virtually irrefutable. The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now argues that there is a high certainty that human behavior is having a disastrous effect on the planet. While politicians acknowledge these facts, they have been slow to use it as a guide for effecting policy. The EU steps up on climate change | The Japan Times Online Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Early this week an expedition to the north pole to measure the affect of global warming was postponed due to extreme cold. Cold Chills Global Warming Expedition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Early this week an expedition to the north pole to measure the affect of global warming was postponed due to extreme cold. Cold Chills Global Warming Expedition I'd suggest they were on their way to measure the effect of global climate change, but yeah, whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 I am not sure the methods used for counting the years in the ice, but it seems that compacting is not the only variable or there would be clear trend. Other factors, such as annual snow fall must be a factor as well. And I image that on occasion there is also loss of surface snow in a given year when the local climate has the proper conditions. You might find This interesting... The inconsistency of the data makes me distrust the dating methods being applied to ice cores, and the dating is central to the "evidence" presented by analysis of those cores.The link I posted above refers to a "referencing system" whereby varying locations/types of cores are compared to create certain identifiable "fingerprints" that can be referenced in cores containing the same episode.Another thing that puzzles me is that in our current phase of global warming the temperatures in Antarctica have remained unchanged. Is the sampling method of deutrium and O18 in the ice as corallating to temperature true only locally or globally? Of the temperature dependent markers the most important is the ratio of 18O to 16O. The water molecules composed of H2(18O) evaporate less rapidly and condense more readily then water molecules composed of H2(16O). Thus, water evaporating from the ocean it starts off H2(18O) poor. As the water vapor travels towards the poles it becomes increasingly poorer in H2(18O) since the heavier molecules tend to precipitate out first. This depletion is a temperature dependent process so in winter the precipitation is more enriched in H2(16O) than is the case in the summer. Thus, each annual layer starts 18O rich, becomes 18O poor, and ends up 18O rich. This process also depends on the relative temperatures of different years, which allows comparison with paleoclimatic data. For similar reasons the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen acts the same way. The major disadvantage of this dating method is that isotopes tend to diffuse as time proceeds. Are we looking at Antarctica's temperature history of the worlds? And how does Antarctica's temerature relate to global temperature considering that they seem to be out of sync for the past 12 years as measured by direct methods? I think twelve years is pretty insignificant when discussing global climate trends. That said, I don't think we know the answer about the relationship yet. But it would seem that since Antarctica is part of the globe, then it must be part of... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 BigDog, Freeztar, good posts, all. Bill:I think Freeztar answered most of my objections to your post, but what I want to know is where did you get the info about Antarctica from? To the best of my knowledge, Antarctica is losing ice as well, at a heck of a rate, with the Ross Ice Shelf shrinking measurably? Maybe I'm wrong, but, hey - B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 ... what I want to know is where did you get the info about Antarctica from? To the best of my knowledge, Antarctica is losing ice as well, at a heck of a rate, with the Ross Ice Shelf shrinking measurably? Maybe I'm wrong, but, hey - B)I've seen this, and there's solid data for both from what I've heard: There are places in Antartica (inland I believe) where there has been a build up of ice due to locally colder temperatures, and this has been trumpeted heavily as "proof" that there's no Global Warming. Conversely, the Ross Ice Shelf is receding at something like walking pace, because there is warming going on at the edges. In the short-term, luckily for folks living on the coast, this means that mostly ice is melting that is already displacing ocean water (like the Arctic too), so we're waiting for more land based ice (like Greenland is, and maybe some day Antartic ice) to melt which will raise the sea level. Buying property in Anaheim, the next Surf City USA,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chill Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 The EU steps up on climate change | The Japan Times Online Well actually, in connection to this, I'd like to discuss a method of reducing carbon emission currently in development. My mum happens to be a scientist at ICRAF, an international non-profit organization dealing with poverty in forest areas and such. As with recent trends, the European Comission is now paying big bucks for projects dealing with global warming. The current most-used methods of dealing with carbon emission are carbon trading and reforestration. Carbon trading is in fact a very good deal for most everybody, as it follows free market economy principles; most world markets have no problem with it. However, its effect is limited to countries: international carbon trading is one of the "in" things nowadays, many important people (Al Gore, most notably) have been trying to push for it. Reforestration, on the other hand, is unlikely to be very successful. According to my mum, reforestration has managed to decrease global carbon emission by about 0.1%; not very much, in other words. The thing about reforestration is that it's appealing; when big companies start planting forests it can at the same time serve as an advertising campaign: "looke here, we've turned green. The trees sprouting out of the ground is evidence." The problem is, forests typically take hundreds of years to grow. And in that same period of time, the amount of forest lost more than makes up for the forest gained. So why not just shift our efforts towards retaining our forests? The large forests of the world aren't called the Lungs of The World without reason; the carbon-retaining capabilities of the rainforests in Borneo, Central Africa, Latin America and of course the Amazon are huge. That is what ICRAF is pushing for. In Indonesia especially (which has recently been ranked 3rd in the world for carbon emission), carbon emission occurs largely due to the burning of forests to clear land for agriculture; slash-and-burn (consider; Indonesia is by no means an industrialized country but its carbon emission is behind only China and America and above India, which is almost 5 times as populous). By rewarding societies living around forests (monetary rewards, for example), we can increase their incentive to retain forests, at the same time retaining forests and reducing poverty. You may question the need to "reward" people for *not* cutting down forests: afterall shouldn't it naturally be the case for them to *not* cut down trees? Well actually, no. To farmers and societies living around forests, the forest is not very helpful (the romantic notion of being able to live off the forest alone is, unfortunately, not very true); farming is more useful. To us, the opposite is definitely true, not having to endure the hardships of the farmers. In the way mentioned above, a compromise can be struck. There are a couple of problems associated with retaining forest. The first is that it is not as flashy as reforestration; there are no pictures of saplings sprouting out of the ground, compainies can't say that they have "retained hunreds of acres of rainforest" in their advertising campaigns. How exactly can you say how much forest you have preserved, anyway? Which brings us to the second problem, the problem of monitering and methodology. It is incredibly difficult to moniter the amount of forest preserved, as it is quite the reverse of growing new ones. This is what ICRAF is currently working on (according to my mum). So people, whatdya think? And forgive my style of writing; I've been reading Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell and its style is kinda contagious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.