Extreme is the New Normal

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:20 am

Hi, Alex,
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Alex,
I asked you a question a while ago and said that I would ignore anything else you posted until you answered the question.
So far, I'm ignoring. Until we know why you reject the weight of genuine climate science, debating individual facts and factoids will get us nowhere.
:namaste:
Kim

I asked the same question in a slightly different way, too:
Why do you choose to believe one set of people you don't know rather than another set of people you don't know?

I am not going to pay any attention until you answer either or both of those questions, and I doubt that anyone else here will do so.
At the moment you are not asking questions, let alone smart questions. You are repeating other people's pseudo-questions and pseudo-science.

:namaste:
Kim

...and if you won't engage in a genuine dialogue, we might as well lock the thread.
:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: USA

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby octathlon » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:00 am

Alex123 wrote:Kim,

The weather has been changing, sometimes drastically, for 4.5 billions of years. There have been MUCH warmer periods than today, and about 19 times as much CO2 than today.

We could say that climate today is more drastic, it is much colder than it used to be for millions of years when life flourished.

What does that have to do with anything, though? What people are worried about in regard to this is how the changes will affect our economies, food supplies, living conditions... IOW, our ability to maintain the lifestyles to which we have become accustomed.

User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:13 pm

Alex123 wrote:Kim,

The weather has been changing, sometimes drastically, for 4.5 billions of years. There have been MUCH warmer periods than today, and about 19 times as much CO2 than today.

We could say that climate today is more drastic, it is much colder than it used to be for millions of years when life flourished.


Your argument seems to have no point. Much of humanity will cease to exist during these periods that you're talking about. So despite that the current warming period is not on schedule, and that all but of a few of the world's climate scientists disagree with your viewpoint, is your plan to just go down in flames?

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:15 pm

octathlon wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Kim,

The weather has been changing, sometimes drastically, for 4.5 billions of years. There have been MUCH warmer periods than today, and about 19 times as much CO2 than today.

We could say that climate today is more drastic, it is much colder than it used to be for millions of years when life flourished.

What does that have to do with anything, though? What people are worried about in regard to this is how the changes will affect our economies, food supplies, living conditions... IOW, our ability to maintain the lifestyles to which we have become accustomed.



It has everything to do with AGW argument that humans cause global warming (or change). If the nature was changing weather BEFORE humans and their factories, then human factor is not needed at all to explain changes in weather.

Today's change in weather is neither more rapid nor more severe than it was before. There is no need to add additional human factor if purely natural explanations can do, as they did for billions of years.


AGW can actually have bad consequences if its well intended but dangerous ideas are carried out.
Ex: If we are going to get into another major cooling period (as patterns suggest), then all the windmills, hydro-plants, etc will not be that useful. Furthermore if the houses are not designed for colder weather, it could make a lot of inconvenience. It is more likely to die in a cold climate than in a hot climate. One could freeze to death.

Using bio-fuels means that what could have been used as food, is now converted into a car fuel. With growing population, this would send the food prices up (the less supply and more demand, the higher the price). I'd rather have it that we use gasoline rather than corn (or whatever is used for bio fuels).

Until there is actual REAL scientific proof (there is none) that CO2 that humans emit has ANYTHING to do with warming, I'd rather not make people starve (and have other people taxed, and economic growth of emerging nations stifled).


"Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to:
"http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html



Cooling Global Warming Hysteria Just One Story Of '08

By Barry Cooper December 31, 2008

The scientific debate over climate change has entered a new phase. This change is reflected in, though hardly constituted by, petitions signed by natural scientists of various kinds disputing the so-called consensus that human-caused CO2 is responsible for global warming.

Two aspects of this story can be distinguished. As James Peden, an atmospheric physicist, said, many scientists "are now searching for a way to back out quietly" from global-warming fearmongering, "without having their professional careers ruined."

This is an ethical or political problem, not a problem in climate science. The crux of it is that major research grants and, in this country, prestigious Canada Research Chairs, have been awarded on the assumption something must be done to stop CO2 from destroying the world.

Those scientists who are the current beneficiaries of a moral panic they help sustain are squirming not because of their ethical transgressions but because of scientific facts. Facts are fragile because they could always be different, but stubborn because they are what they are, independent of opinions, including any "consensus." In this context the big inconvenient fact is that for almost a decade, ice-core data have shown climate cycles antedate changes in atmospheric CO2.

There was even worse news for those who believed in human-caused climate change. Up to now most of the debate, including the notorious intellectual swindle of the hockey stick graph, amounted to what paleoclimatologist Ian Clark called "wiggle watching" --matching the ups and downs of temperature with the ups and downs of CO2 or, say, sun spots. Until recently there was no experimental evidence to decide which wiggle was worth watching.

In 2006, experiments at the Danish National Space Center provided evidence that changes in the magnetic field of the sun can affect not CO2 but water vapour--clouds--which are responsible for up to 95 per cent of the warmth that keeps Earth habitable. Last year the implications finally sunk in.

The original experiment is being replicated by CERN, the European Organization for Nu-clear Research, so stay tuned.

Remember, there is no experimental evidence--none at all--that an increase in CO2 can increase greenhouse warming, and that ice-core evidence indicates the causal arrow does not go from changes in CO2 to changes in climate.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Cooling+gl ... story.html
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:26 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:...and if you won't engage in a genuine dialogue, we might as well lock the thread.
:namaste:
Kim



As long as you don't answer my specific questions, and simply call everything that I quote (but not your quotes) as "junk science", there won't be meaningful dialogue.

We could start with this:

Considering that climate was changing for billions of years prior to humans, and the changes were as extreme and rapid as today, and even if humans would vanish from the planet, the Earth would still change climate as it did for billions of years, what proof is there that todays climate change is significantly due to humans and poses real danger?

Even if we would drop dead, the CO2 would still rapidly go up and down, and so would the temperature.
Last edited by Alex123 on Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"dust to dust...."

Justsit
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Justsit » Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:38 pm

Actually, that's two questions....

1. what proof is there that todays climate change is significantly due to humans ?

and

2. what proof is there that todays climate change poses real danger?

Perhaps these should be addressed separately??

User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: USA

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby octathlon » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:06 pm

Alex,
To figure out whether the global warming that is occurring is caused by, worsened by, or unrelated to human activity is kind of like figuring out whether smoking contributes to lung disease, cardiovascular disease, etc. In other words, if a smoker gets lung cancer or has a heart attack, you can't say for sure that in that case it was caused by their smoking, or if would have happened anyway but maybe was worse or happened sooner because of it, or if it was unrelated. You can't conclude anything from individual cases of disease (or individual weather events).

Instead, you have to do studies and statistical analysis on a lot of complicated data like number of cancers and other diseases in smoking and non-smoking populations, and you have to try and control for other contributing factors like diet, genetics, other environmental factors like radon. That's why there used to be so much controversy about dangers of smoking. It takes a long time to collect sufficient data and do rigorous analysis to prove it, especially when profit-making enterprises have a vested interest in dismissing the idea. Eventually enough studies were done and reviewed until finally it was accepted that smoking really is harmful.

I think that's a pretty good parallel with the study of global warming/climate change that has been going on for the last few decades. The question of how much human activity contributes to it has to be estimated by statistical analysis that corrects for other contributing factors. And we don't have a "control planet". The subject is even more politically charged than smoking was, and it's probably already too late by now to reverse the human contribution in time to help much (see this for example). But I think we should be able to agree that smoking isn't good for us and neither is polluting our environment, can't we?

User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: USA

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby octathlon » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:13 pm

Justsit wrote:Actually, that's two questions....

1. what proof is there that todays climate change is significantly due to humans ?

and

2. what proof is there that todays climate change poses real danger?

Perhaps these should be addressed separately??

Yes, good point, and I would add:

3. Regardless of the answer to #1, and if the answer to #2 is "it does", then: What can we do about it that we know will help? (I've heard some crazy ideas that might do much more harm than good)

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:26 pm

Hello Octathlon,

The thing about Climate change is that it was happening for 4.5 billion of years before human's industrial activity. If an explanation is sufficient to explain something (such as climate change), there is no need to complicate it further. If nature by itself could change climate as it did, it is not required that some new external cause plays any or significant part in changing the climate.


The problem is that AGW's solutions are not as harmless as they seem. First of all, additional taxes (Carbon tax) is not what I think is good for us.

Bio-fuels have drawbacks as well. The food that could have been used to feed people (or animals) could be converted to car fuel. This would reduce food supply, and drive the prices up. What about all the poor people who can barely afford food? Now that is something to worry about.

What if humans prepare for warmer climate (build houses suitable for warmth and not arctic weather) and we get another ice age instead? People could freeze to death, or at least heating bills would really go up without properly insulated houses.

Any human change (if they could really) could easily be reversed by nature. Why add additional taxes, and add inconviniences to humans, if nature could always get a last say in any climate change?



The argument that humans burn CO2, and CO2 causes GW is flawed:


...CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: USA

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby octathlon » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:58 pm

Alex123 wrote:If an explanation is sufficient to explain something (such as climate change), there is no need to complicate it further. If nature by itself could change climate as it did, it is not required that some new external cause plays any or significant part in changing the climate.

I disagree with that. Using the smoking analogy, "people have been getting cancer and cardiovascular disease all along, so therefore smoking is not a factor" is not valid logic.

Alex123 wrote: The problem is that AGW's solutions are not as harmless as they seem. First of all, additional taxes (Carbon tax) is not what I think is good for us.

I havent' researched the various proposals on that or their implications so I haven't formed an opinion on it yet...

Alex123 wrote:Bio-fuels have drawbacks as well. The food that could have been used to feed people (or animals) could be converted to car fuel. This would reduce food supply, and drive the prices up. What about all the poor people who can barely afford food? Now that is something to worry about.

Agree. Plus using food crops for fuel is not efficient anyway. A variety of switchgrass is being developed that is easy to convert, but still not efficient enough, and it would require land that could be used for food crops. But there is good work being done on improving the efficiency of producing hydrogen from water directly from sunlight, and other promising research to create fuels without using food crops or cropland.

Alex123 wrote:What if humans prepare for warmer climate (build houses suitable for warmth and not arctic weather) and we get another ice age instead? People could freeze to death, or at least heating bills would really go up without properly insulated houses.

Those aren't the effects of GW that we are worrying about, but more extreme weather events (stronger storms, increased flooding, increased periods of drought), rise of sea level affecting coastal cities where most people live, etc. etc. It will still get plenty cold in winter at your house.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:58 pm

octathlon wrote:
Alex123 wrote:If an explanation is sufficient to explain something (such as climate change), there is no need to complicate it further. If nature by itself could change climate as it did, it is not required that some new external cause plays any or significant part in changing the climate.

I disagree with that. Using the smoking analogy, "people have been getting cancer and cardiovascular disease all along, so therefore smoking is not a factor" is not valid logic.


Your analogue is not perfect. There are different kinds of cancers, and cardiovascular disease can also be due to numerous factors.

When it comes to "temperature rise/fall" - it was occuring for billions of years without humans. So humans are NOT required for drastic temperature rises and falls. And neither are humans the only required cause for extinction of life. In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died. . Whether humans exist or not, bad stuff will occur.

Considering the past kind of climate- today's climate isn't extreme by a long shot. If past climate change occured without humans, then human influence is NOT required to explain climate change.

octathlon wrote:Those aren't the effects of GW that we are worrying about, but more extreme weather events (stronger storms, increased flooding, increased periods of drought), rise of sea level affecting coastal cities where most people live, etc. etc. It will still get plenty cold in winter at your house.


Weather cataclysms, mass die offs, hot/cold weather, happened dozens/hundreds of millions years ago. This is samsara. Bad stuff happens.


Some scientists suggest that 99% of documented species that were on Earth, have extinct. This is bad, but this is life.

Over 99% of documented species are now extinct...
Since life began on Earth, several major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate. The most recent, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which occurred approximately 65.5 million years ago (Ma), was a large-scale mass extinction of animal and plant species in a geologically short period of time. In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died. There probably were mass extinctions in the Archean and Proterozoic Eons, but before the Phanerozoic there were no animals with hard body parts to leave a significant fossil record.

Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as "major", and the data chosen to measure past diversity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction



So Extreme weather, extreme die-offs, extreme cataclysms have occured before humans, millions of years ago. IMHO, the climate change will happen even if humans were to completely disappear off the planet. I don't believe that this AGW scare should be used to justify additional taxation, additional technological restrictions, etc.
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: USA

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby octathlon » Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:33 pm

OK, so your final position is that because climate change can and does happen naturally, you therefore will not consider any possibility that human activity could be a contributing factor to the current warming trend, no matter what evidence may be found through all the studies and analysis I described earlier. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:03 pm

octathlon wrote:OK, so your final position is that because climate change can and does happen naturally, you therefore will not consider any possibility that human activity could be a contributing factor to the current warming trend, no matter what evidence may be found through all the studies and analysis I described earlier. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.


If someone can prove (please write it in this thread) that current climate change is due to humans as opposed to nature - I will accept that. I prefer the truth.

First, CO2 is not the cause of global warming:
...CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

"Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Second, Millions of years ago, extreme cataclysms have been occurring causing up to 99% of documented species to go extinct.
Over 99% of documented species are now extinct...
Since life began on Earth, several major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate. The most recent, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which occurred approximately 65.5 million years ago (Ma), was a large-scale mass extinction of animal and plant species in a geologically short period of time. In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died. There probably were mass extinctions in the Archean and Proterozoic Eons, but before the Phanerozoic there were no animals with hard body parts to leave a significant fossil record.

Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as "major", and the data chosen to measure past diversity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.
==================================================================================================================

There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "


Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


So whether there are or aren't any humans, climate will change, cataclysms will still occur, and some (many or all) species could die off. In the meantime, lets not impose additional taxes, additional inconveniences, and lets not stifle economic growth. Natural variability of earth climate could be the sole and sufficient cause to make drastic and catastrophic climate change.
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:33 am

Hi, Alex,
In one more attempt to show you why we don't take much notice of some of your sources, I took one of your favourite graphs (you have uploaded it several times, so you must like it) and added a red rectangle (near the right hand end, where it belongs) to which is (as close as I can make it) 6 million years wide. It therefore represents the period since our evolutionary line split from that of all the other apes - not just the time since our ancestors learned to walk on two feet, not just the time since they discovered fire, waaaay longer than the time since they first built houses.
Here it is. I had to stretch the image a bit from side to side so that you can see the red rectangle clearly. I'm sorry that makes the text a bit hard to read, but you can refer to your own copy if you need to.

co2AlexMY long.jpg
co2AlexMY long.jpg (356.87 KiB) Viewed 329 times


Two questions:
1. Where did those sudden, catastrophic, changes go?
2. Can you add, at the same horizontal scale, a rectangle showing the time since the Egyptians built the pyramids?
:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:52 am

If you want to get more technical (about the OP, not AGW in general), here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/going-to-extremes/ is a nice article I have just come across.
:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:52 pm

Hi Kim,
Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Alex,
In one more attempt to show you why we don't take much notice of some of your sources, I took one of your favourite graphs (you have uploaded it several times, so you must like it) and added a red rectangle (near the right hand end, where it belongs) to which is (as close as I can make it) 6 million years wide. It therefore represents the period since our evolutionary line split from that of all the other apes - not just the time since our ancestors learned to walk on two feet, not just the time since they discovered fire, waaaay longer than the time since they first built houses.
Here it is. I had to stretch the image a bit from side to side so that you can see the red rectangle clearly. I'm sorry that makes the text a bit hard to read, but you can refer to your own copy if you need to.


Two questions:
1. Where did those sudden, catastrophic, changes go?
2. Can you add, at the same horizontal scale, a rectangle showing the time since the Egyptians built the pyramids?
:namaste:
Kim


Can you please tell us the exact point you are trying to make, so that I answer your question? It may be a good point, but please explain it better.
Can you provide your best argument, in your own words?

Here is what I understand:

- The earth was undergoing climate change for 4.5 billion of years. Not only after industrial revolution by homo sapiens.
- The earth was warming and cooling on its own for 4.5 billion of years. So it isn't correct to predict warming to catastrophic levels.
- We are actually in COOL period of where the earth's climate has historically been, so it is quite natural that temperature may go up and down. If we compare current temperatures with the coldest part in the past ~20K
co22.jpg
co22.jpg (4.99 KiB) Viewed 318 times
, then yes, it looks very scary. But this is deliberately showing only a little amount of information to create a wrong impression. If we look at the bigger picture, such as the one spanning 400K years, we will see that there is nothing unusual in that spike. If we look at the chart showing 500 or so millions of years, we will see that current temperatures are indeed unusual. They are in one of the coldest periods this planet has been. The context and time scale does matter. Deliberately choosing a very narrow time span where the temperature was increasing, without showing the reference where the temperatures have been before, shows selection bias.

I would like to see (I haven't yet) AGW proponents of comparing and contrasting modern climate with historical climate that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago. Lets see the numbers of CO2, average global temperature, precipitation, storm levels, etc. Without having sufficient data to compare current events with, we could get skewed and one sided cut out like I've provided above (co22.jpg). Maybe there were 100x as much storms in Cambrian (for example) than today. So compared to Cambrian, we are in heaven! So little storms! The earth's weather is almost silent!



As I have shown in another chart, in the past 400,000 years there have been 3 major spikes in temperature. Today's 4th major spike (at the right of the picture) is NOT bigger (it looks smaller than the one at 350K years ago) or more rapid than previous ones (approximately 150K, 250K, 350K years ago).


To me, it is a concrete proof that nature itself could be the explanation for changes in temperature. If we require humans to be the required cause for temperature change, then it would make previous temperature spikes hard to explain. If current spike was REALLY different from previous ones, then the natural explanation may not work. But the current spike is not more severe or rapid than the previous ones.



co2Alex.JPG
co2Alex.JPG (59.67 KiB) Viewed 318 times



The main argument about CO2 is incorrect:
..CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:07 am

Kim, all,

In short:
In order to say that modern climate is more extreme than usual, we need to compare it to the climate as it has been for at least hundreds of million of years. Then based on that comparison, and if today's weather is more extreme, we could say that climate now is more extreme then before.

Comparing current climate with the past 100 years is NOT sufficient amount of data. The earth existed for 4.5 billion of years. Not 100 years. If we are comparing climate itself, lets use full data.

I have this data. If someone has better data on the significant amount of time (100s of millions of years), please post it.




co2AlexMillionsYears.JPG
co2AlexMillionsYears.JPG (62.22 KiB) Viewed 317 times
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:41 am

Alex,
My last post was another attempt to get you to see for yourself that the data you keep pushing at us is misleading because it is irrelevant. If I want to go from my house to the nearest coffee shop, a map of the whole world is useless. If we want to understand what is happening to the climate we depend on, your 600 million year graph is useless. What matters to us is not the differences and similarities over 600 000 000 years. Not even the differences over 600 000 years. The climate for most of earth's history did not and could not support human life. The climate for all except the last 1000 years did not accommodate coastal cities. The climate for all except the last 100 years did not form the essential preconditions for global agriculture supporting several billion people.
If we want to know whether the climate in the next hundred years can continue to support our civilisation, we need to know how it is changing from what actually does support our civilisation.
On your two favourite graphs, the last 100 years is only one or two pixels wide and you can't see anything that's useful. The last little snippet of your red/blue graph is a case in point:
co22.jpg
co22.jpg (4.99 KiB) Viewed 310 times

That blue line heading straight up at the extreme right of the graph is the key to the whole problem - and you can barely see it, let alone see its relationship to the red line, which is the other half of the problem.
When you acknowledge what I'm saying, we can take the next step.
:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:35 pm

Kim,

Kim O'Hara wrote:Alex,
My last post was another attempt to get you to see for yourself that the data you keep pushing at us is misleading because it is irrelevant. If I want to go from my house to the nearest coffee shop, a map of the whole world is useless. If we want to understand what is happening to the climate we depend on, your 600 million year graph is useless. What matters to us is not the differences and similarities over 600 000 000 years. Not even the differences over 600 000 years. The climate for most of earth's history did not and could not support human life. The climate for all except the last 1000 years did not accommodate coastal cities. The climate for all except the last 100 years did not form the essential preconditions for global agriculture supporting several billion people.
If we want to know whether the climate in the next hundred years can continue to support our civilisation, we need to know how it is changing from what actually does support our civilisation.


We are talking about climate change and relevance of human activity on climate change. In reference to that I've posted all the graphs and quotes.
I am not talking about climate at which current humans can live. We are not talking about real (or imagined) scenarios of what would occur if CO2 levels increased to more usual levels. What our main point is whether climate change is caused by humans or not.

Because we are talking about climate change, it makes sense to gather AS MUCH DATA as possible and based on that, make conclusions. Since the Earth existed for 4.5 billions of years and was changing quite a lot (without humans, btw) we need to take THAT in consideration - 100 years, even 100,000 years is too little (<1%).

If one want to learn well about a certain subject, one studies it as much as possible. Our subject here is climate change and human's role in it.
Also to call current climate extreme, we need reference point from which to measure. Past 100 years do not count when considering that this earth existed for 4.5 Billion of years.

As I have repeatedly shown, the temperatures and CO2 levels were changing. For this discussion it doesn't matter if humans could live in those circumstances, as it is a different topic. The topic is climate change and human influence on it. So I wonder, how could humans influence the climate levels of CO2 which were 500 millions of years ago? If nature could raise CO2 levels as high as 7,000 ppm, then I am sure it could be explained for very tiny levels of 390ppm today. If raise of CO2 levels cannot be explained without human's CO2 emission, then explain all those very high levels of CO2 which stayed for millions of years? It is irrelevant to this discussion whether humans can live in higher CO2 levels. What is relevant is the natural change of the climate.


The main argument about CO2 causing temperature to rise is incorrect:
..CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

"Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Kim O'Hara wrote:That blue line heading straight up at the extreme right of the graph is the key to the whole problem - and you can barely see it, let alone see its relationship to the red line, which is the other half of the problem.



That is because what has happened in the past 100 years is NOTHING compared to what was before. Our 350-390ppm CO2 levels are insignificant compared to
up to 7,000ppm CO2 levels of Cambrian period. Current rise from 350-390ppm is nothing compared to rise of CO2 from 4,500ppm to ~7,000ppm in Cambrian. Our temperatures are also very LOW compared to where it has been for millions of years. Whether humans can survive is irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is the fact that earth was undergoing significant climate change for millions and billions of years.


When you acknowledge what I'm saying, we can take the next step.


With metta,

Alex
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:33 pm

Alex123 wrote:Kim,
When you acknowledge what I'm saying, we can take the next step.

Alex,
I have acknowledged what you are saying. I have said it is not necessarily all wrong but it is all irrelevant to AGW.

Now you say "We are talking about climate change and relevance of human activity on climate change," not, "whether the climate in the next hundred years can continue to support our civilisation."
That doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain it so I can decide whether I want to talk about what you think you are talking about.
:namaste:
Kim


Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests