Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:07 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17139
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Feur wrote:
Water freezes, melts, evaporates, it's constantly changing (Fluid, Solid, Gas).

Laird touches on the reason why I got my PhD.

Here is a concept they teach in biology. It works... under many circumstances.
Wikipedia wrote:
Homeostasis (from Greek: ὅμοιος, "hómoios", "similar",[1] and στάσις, stásis, "standing still"[2]) is the property of a system that regulates its internal environment and tends to maintain a stable, relatively constant condition of properties such as temperature or pH. It can be either an open or closed system. In simple terms, it is a process in which the body's internal environment is kept stable. It was defined by Claude Bernard and later by Walter Bradford Cannon in 1926,[3] 1929[4] and 1932.[5][6]


Here is the way the world can be - when you stop assuming that it is linear.
TheFreeDictionary wrote:
heterostasis (heˈ·t·rō·stāˑ·sis) n. Maintenance of physiologic stability in circumstances of change, whether predictable or unpredictable, through adaptation. Also called allostasis.

For what it's worth, you'll find homeostasis in Wikipedia. You won't (yet) find heterostasis there as defined. Stay tuned.

Instability and predictably unpredictable behavior* are often signs of a healthy biological system. If the wolf could always predict which direction the rabbit jumped, then all rabbits would be eaten and both species would die.

At times these phenomena can be signs of a healthy planet. They show a capacity for a range of responses to extreme external perturbations. Sit back and enjoy the planet. What we don't know and - by definition - cannot predict are all part of the fun.

- Bill

* a.k.a. the butterfly effect, or hypersensitivity to initial conditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
I know you're not a huge fan of consensus, and disregarding the foolish editorial "40000 climate scientists can't be wrong" that the article puts in, this article still has some interest. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ans-causes

I'm pretty sure every climate scientist knows full well about both water's states and the geological history of the planet. The question neither whether the planet has ever gotten hot before, or even whether it can ever return to temperatures we consider normal. The question is: Are we f-ing ourselves up? The planet is fine, it will continue to circle the sun for billions of years to come (probably), and if humans aren't on it anymore, maybe it doesn't matter anyway . But most people don't really like the idea of mass starvation, resource wars, city-eliminating disasters (coastal flooding) etc on a global scale. This is about practical outcomes for humans. Yeah, there's a lot of people who talk about "The Planet" as if it's a thing that has intrinsic value, but you can ignore all that and still care about whether global warming is going to cause problems for people.

The planet can be in heterostatis, but there's no guarantee that human life is tenable in every substate. If you don't care about that, fine, but for the almost-everyone that thinks human life matters, the knowledge that microbes will always live on in the deep oceans isn't really very relevant.

_________________
- Justin Powell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Posts: 1750
Location: USA
I've seen nothing that convinces me I should give up more of my money to counteract the threat posed by this ivory tower sky-is-falling wet dream. I am not alone. Thankfully, we live in a Democracy. So until you can convince a majority of the population that they should sacrifice at the dinner table, their kids' education, or daycare, to save the world, well, I think global warming will continue to be given short shift.

Things I don't believe in:

Santa Clause
Global Warming
The Tooth Fairy
9/11 was an inside-job
Bigfoot
The Da Vinci Code has any basis in fact
Nero fiddled while Rome burned
The Neverending Story

P.S. It was Global Cooling before it became Global Warming before it became Climate Change. Maybe if we changed the name again, people will listen... Wait, no, words still have meaning. Keep digging.

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17139
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Valkenar wrote:
... for the almost-everyone that thinks human life matters ...

Strawman alert!

For the almost-everyone that thinks human life matters, they wouldn't have us starving third world countries so that the elite can drive $100,000 electric cars or government-subsidized virtual golf carts. Not that I'd turn down a Tesla Model S if given to me... Alternatives to fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal) don't exist today as anything more than niche and/or regional players (e.g. Hoover dam). If you force humanity not to run on a carbon-based economy, you relegate a good chunk of humanity on this planet to economic poverty. The liberal elite and fiscally conservative wealthy will do fine. The average will suffer. Third world countries will collapse, and re-emerge doing what they damn well please (e.g. burning coal).

And I would think someone who believes in science and math would come to an argument like this at least acknowledging that they appreciate mathematical equations that demonstrate hypersensitivity to initial conditions. And they would understand that assumptions of linearity in Nature are... ignorant. And if they acknowledge both, and acknowledge the fact that FOSSIL FUEL (solar energy stored in carbon bonds) means recycling carbon back to where it came from, well they'd appreciate the fact that the planet just might do fine if we don't behave like complete idiots.

It's really not that difficult.

For those who want to understand the mathematical concepts I'm talking about, I highly recommend the following wonderful book. A degree in math is not required.

Image

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17139
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
......... Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17139
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
There is a long-term solution to the energy situation, and that would be nuclear. It is carbon neutral. Fission is today, and fusion - the sun on earth - is the promise of tomorrow. Only problem is... our current administration is trying to tell countries like Iran that they can't do it. It's OK for Iran to burn all the oil they want. But develop nuclear power plants and the world will sanction you.

I mean really... Solar cells on the roof to *supplement* home energy makes sense. Capturing the wind and the water - where you have it and the environmentalists won't block you - makes sense. That'll cover maybe 20 percent max of a country's energy needs. Take away the oil, natural gas, and coal, and nuclear is the only option.

And one day that's where we'll all go. Figure out how to do nuclear safely, develop a better battery, and you have energy after fossil fuels run out in a few centuries. We're not there yet, but we will be.

Meanwhile... if Justin will buy me one of these today, then I'll happily go green. 8) Extended battery model please (the 85kWh performance model), and AWD if they have one available. The RWD model with the extended battery requested will only cost you around $87K. I'll need the extra "fast charge" attachments so I can make my monthly 541 mile trip within a day. You get me this, and I'll make the arrangements for the charging stations in-between Richmond and Louisville. *

Image

- Bill

* I doubt that West Virginia will be keen on setting up charging stations for me. But if I did one in Lexington, Virginia and one in Ashland, Kentucky, I should be able to leapfrog coal country with the bigger battery.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
You misused the term strawman again (or made an obvious converse error) so I'm not interested in discussing that part of the argument anymore. Ironically, you immediately made a strawman of my argument (I never advocated immediately ceasing all carbon use) in the process.

I think this pretty obviously comes down to two very different questions.

1, Is the current global warming trend significantly increased by human activity?
2, what should we do about it?

Most of these arguments seem to be people wanting to deny 1 because they're afraid of discussing 2 in the context of 1 being true. I'm not interested in discussing 2 until we agree about 1.

_________________
- Justin Powell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17139
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Valkenar wrote:
You misused the term strawman

I don't see it that way.

Wikipedia wrote:
A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

You use the technique often enough that it's easy to spot it.
Justin wrote:
for the almost-everyone that thinks human life matters

You weave this in your argument in a way that implies I don't think human life matters. The fallacy of your position is that *you* put your argument ahead of the welfare of those who cannot afford "alternative" energy to conduct their daily lives. That includes the vast majority of people in this country living from paycheck to paycheck, and most of the rest of the world that subsists rather than thrives. So you'll have to deal with it when I take your sword and turn it on you.

If you've got a better label for your technique, I'm all ears. But I know the logical fallacy when I see it.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17139
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Valkenar wrote:
Is the current global warming trend significantly increased by human activity?

Bingo.

Scientists who understand nonlinear mathematics are not convinced by the linear modelers who attempt to prove that "climate change" - the term du jour - is largely anthropogenic. Even a signal processing hack can take experiential data and show that temperature leads rather than lags CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (See cross correlation techniques.) That is completely consistent with Henry's law.

FWIW

I will spot you the "what to do about it" part. There's no good answer on the ecofreak front.

Still waiting for that Model S, Justin. No ticket-me-red color, please; I have a happy foot. :mrgreen:

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:48 am
Posts: 415
Quote:
I mean really... Solar cells on the roof to *supplement* home energy makes sense. Capturing the wind and the water - where you have it and the environmentalists won't block you - makes sense. That'll cover maybe 20 percent max of a country's energy needs. Take away the oil, natural gas, and coal, and nuclear is the only option.


Im glad you mentioned this Bill , I wonder sometimes if people really have an idea about what there asking

NZ is a great example we generate about 75 % of all electricity with renewables , mainly hydro and geothermal , we are an exception and resource lucky in this department , and there are plans to get this to 90%

...... the catch ......

this equates for about 38 % of energy consumption

that's right , even when your doing it to the book , 62 % of energy is coming from non renewable Hydrocarbon fuels ......

Im all for the improvement and development , and believe technology is the only way forward , but im not sure many are even slightly aware of the reality of the energy situation.

a few solar panels and wind turbines are not going to cut it, without some radical technology breakthroughs.

I'm pro environment (how's that/and this... for a strawman) , but what we shouldn't do really isn't going to cut it , what we need is a how to do it , without all becoming vegans , living in straw huts huddling with the wild animals for warmth because we cant light a fire for fear of the sky falling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17139
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Stryke wrote:
NZ is a great example we generate about 75 % of all electricity with renewables , mainly hydro and geothermal , we are an exception and resource lucky in this department , and there are plans to get this to 90%

...

I'm pro environment (how's that/and this... for a strawman) , but what we shouldn't do really isn't going to cut it , what we need is a how to do it , without all becoming vegans , living in straw huts huddling with the wild animals for warmth because we cant light a fire for fear of the sky falling.

Iceland is blessed with geothermal. They live where land is expanding and the heat of the earth's crust is plentiful. Location, location, location.

..... Geothermal power in Iceland

France - last I checked - was getting 80% of their electricity (grid) energy from nuclear. That's carbon neutral - something that drives the environmentalists and anti-nukes absolutely bonkers. If the EU starts laying on the carbon consumption taxes, France stands to gain by selling their electrons at a tidy profit. And good for them, I say.

..... Nuclear power in France

Other than those examples of non-fossil-fuel energy production and perhaps the hope of dilithium crystals (jk), you don't have much else available today that's more than a niche player.

Niche applications are good. When solar gets a little cheaper and I know for a fact that I'll stay in my home for more than a few years, solar panels are going on the southern (back) exposure of my roof. No need to pay for what I can generate. With electricity, very inexpensive natural gas, a backup gas generator, and solar, I could be free from market perturbations. And I won't have to worry about frequent thunderstorms, ice storms, and hurricanes. Always some electricity some way some how. Never a frozen home.

But this won't save the planet from that bad, bad CO2 (jk).

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
A couple of misconceptions are being expressed.

Jason Rees wrote:
Global Cooling before it became Global Warming before it became Climate Change

and
Bill Glasheen wrote:
"climate change" - the term du jour

This is a common disinformation. "Climate change" has been in use since the 1800s when scientists began to understand the extent to which climate can change over time, particularly after the discovery of the ice ages. One of the earliest treatises on climate change was published in 1922, Climatic Changes: Their Nature and Causes by geographers Ellsworth Huntington and Stephen Visher.

Obviously "global warming" has been around as a term and concept since at least the discovery of the ice ages as well. Global warming is one type of climate change.

"Global cooling" gets more press now than it did when it was mentioned in the 1970s. Basically there was a few studies in the 1960s and 1970s that argued Earth was approaching/entering a cooling period, possibly another ice age, but it was always a minority view and never the consensus about global warming. As this chart shows, throughout that period global warming was the dominant concern:

Image

So the commonly used conservative talking point that scientists did an about face from global cooling to global warming is just plain wrong. Global cooling was merely an alternative hypothesis that was quickly disproved.

Bill Glasheen wrote:
Scientists who understand nonlinear mathematics are not convinced by the linear modelers who attempt to prove that "climate change" - the term du jour - is largely anthropogenic. Even a signal processing hack can take experiential data and show that temperature leads rather than lags CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (See cross correlation techniques.) That is completely consistent with Henry's law.

You need to branch out more in what you read about this topic Bill, or at least read something from the 21st century. Strictly linear modeling of the climate is decades in the past; the present involves climate being studied as a non-linear dynamic system with feedbacks. Courses in climatology and ecology introduce non-linear mathematics, hypersensitivity to initial conditions, and chaos by the sophomore level (I taught these in introductory ecology lab courses a few years ago). Meanwhile Henry's Law is accounted for in the climate models.

Bill Glasheen wrote:
acknowledge the fact that FOSSIL FUEL (solar energy stored in carbon bonds) means recycling carbon back to where it came from

I have called you on this before and you ignored it so I will try again. It took millions of years to store that much carbon into fossil fuels, and we are releasing it in a matter of centuries...how do you of all people, as a mathematical systems modeler, see those as equivalent processes?

Justin expresses it well, climate scientists know and incorporate all of the math, chemistry, and physics concepts that have been brought up here, the question is what does all this mean for the future of humanity. My favorite definition of geography is "what is where, why there, and why care". It is the why care that makes all of this relevant. Instead of wasting so much time, energy, and money incorrectly making up fault with the science of climate change and global warming, which results in more wasted time, energy, and money countering such disinformation, we need to focus on what this warming means and what, if, anything we can do about it.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17139
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:
So the commonly used conservative talking point that scientists did an about face from global cooling to global warming is just plain wrong. Global cooling was merely an alternative hypothesis that was quickly disproved.

Quickly disproved? That's a strong word, Glenn. Sorry... there is no "proof" of any projection.

But that isn't really the point at all.

Glenn wrote:
Strictly linear modeling of the climate is decades in the past; the present involves climate being studied as a non-linear dynamic system with feedbacks. Courses in climatology and ecology introduce non-linear mathematics, hypersensitivity to initial conditions, and chaos by the sophomore level (I taught these in introductory ecology lab courses a few years ago).

And yet you show no understanding of the concept, Glenn.

Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction wrote:
Lorenz stated that it is impossible to predict the weather accurately.

What part of that statement do you not understand, Glenn?

No matter how many times you post, and how many times you declare yourself right, nonlinear mathematics don't care. Lorenz showed this over 50 years ago. Mathematics doesn't fall in and out of fashion like short skirts or handlebar mustaches.

Glenn wrote:
You need to branch out more in what you read about this topic Bill, or at least read something from the 21st century.

Why? Did mathematics change when the clock hit Y2K? Do Einstein's theories, Maxwell's equations, and the dual nature of light change every century?

At the risk of being tedious, let me repeat.

Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction wrote:
Lorenz stated that it is impossible to predict the weather accurately.

Glenn wrote:
Henry's Law is accounted for in the climate models.

Climate DATA show that temperature leads rather than lags CO2. Nature doesn't care what naive models say.

Glenn wrote:
I have called you on this before and you ignored it so I will try again. It took millions of years to store that much carbon into fossil fuels, and we are releasing it in a matter of centuries...how do you of all people, as a mathematical systems modeler, see those as equivalent processes?

The endpoint becomes the beginning. Is that so hard? That endpoint/beginning was obviously a healthy one since so much organic matter was being produced that ultimately became fossil fuels. Sounds good to me! Could it be that things might actually be better????

If you drain a battery over a day vs. over a year, does it matter?

Next question...

Glenn wrote:
We need to focus on what this warming means and what, if, anything we can do about it.

Why - especially since it may not be largely anthropogenic? And chances are change IS the norm. That is the point I keep trying to make (a.k.a. heterostasis).

You jump to a conclusion and then challenge me to support your passion to do something about said conclusion as if it was fact. Sorry... I'm not falling for it. But nice try! :-)

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Posts: 1750
Location: USA
Not buying it, Glenn. I'he seen too many instances of 'global warming' being corrected after the fact to climate change, especially and most explicitly during the winter. Summer comes along and people lose air conditioning and suddenly, as if by pre-arranged signal, 'global warming' is trotted out again. Winter. Cold. Climate Change. Summer. Hot. Global Warming. Rinse. Repeat.

Enough with the spin and manure, already.

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Bill Glasheen wrote:
Quickly disproved? That's a strong word, Glenn. Sorry... there is no "proof" of any projection.

The body of evidence supported global warming and not global cooling. Hypotheses and theories can never be proved but can be disproved, that's basic science.

Bill Glasheen wrote:
And yet you show no understanding of the concept, Glenn.

Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction wrote:
Lorenz stated that it is impossible to predict the weather accurately.

What part of that statement do you not understand, Glenn?

No matter how many times you post, and how many times you declare yourself right, nonlinear mathematics don't care. Lorenz showed this over 50 years ago. Mathematics doesn't fall in and out of fashion like short skirts or handlebar mustaches.

Strawman alert! Once again you are off on a distraction tangent that has nothing to do with the point I made or the discussion at hand. The discussion was about whether atmospheric scientists understand and incorporate current mathematical tools and scientific concepts, and as you well know I was countering your claims about them not being up to date. You may want to look into what training in math, physics, and chemistry atmospheric scientists actually receive, they being the specialists in the mathematics, physics, and chemistry of the atmosphere after all.

Regarding your quote and attempt at painting atmospheric scientists as overlooking the obvious however, you fail to mention that Lorenz was an atmospheric scientist himself and that he was working on the then already well-know problem of inaccuracy in weather prediction. I will see your Lorenz and raise you a quote from a copy of a 1894 Elementary Meteorology textbook that I have (pp. 324-325, emphasis added)

William Morris Davis wrote:
...one cannot avoid a certain feeling of disappointment that all of the labor that has been bestowed on the subject of weather prediction in this country during the last twenty years has not led to greater advances beyond the methods employed and the results gained at the outset of the undertaking. The number of stations has grown, and their equipment has been materially improved; the accuracy of various processes preparatory to charting has been increased; a vast body of information has been accumulated for the study relative to the kinds and changes of weather; various predicting officers have had extended practice in their art; and while the forecasts are truly made for longer periods than they were at first, and are certainly superior in definiteness and accuracy to those issued twenty years ago, their improvement is not so great as was hoped for. It is still often impossible to predict the weather changes for more than twenty-four hours in advance with a desirable degree of certainty.

Our understanding of why it is impossible to predict weather accurately has changed due to atmospheric scientists such as Lorenz, but the basic elements of what you are trying to point out with your quote was part of Meteorology 101 way back in the 19th century. And by the way, Davis' book also contains a section on "Changes of Climate".

Bill Glasheen wrote:
Why? Did mathematics change when the clock hit Y2K? Do Einstein's theories, Maxwell's equations, and the dual nature of light change every century?

Sigh...again with the selective, out-of-context quoting and strawman argument. Too many distractions interfering with your focus? Seriously, do you in your work today only use techniques you learned in graduate school 30 years ago?

Bill Glasheen wrote:
Climate DATA show that temperature leads rather than lags CO2. Nature doesn't care what naive models say.

This naïve statement is surprising coming from you Bill. Could it be that the atmosphere is a complex, dynamic system that cannot be summarized by your ultra-simplistic statement? Trusting this misuse of data from climate science is like you trusting attorneys leading a lawsuit against an insurance company for their interpretation of your health data. From Why does CO2 lag temperature? (emphasis added)
Quote:
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
• Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles

• CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone

• CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

You are correct, nature does not care about models, but nature does abide by the processes at work...all of them, not just the ones you like.

Bill Glasheen wrote:
The endpoint becomes the beginning. Is that so hard? That endpoint/beginning was obviously a healthy one since so much organic matter was being produced that ultimately became fossil fuels. Sounds good to me! Could it be that things might actually be better????

At best you are being way too simplistic again. Over those millions of years atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated widely, so when is this so-called beginning? Throughout human existence CO2 levels have never been as high as they are today so in that frame of reference the end is far higher than the beginning.

Image

And as for things being better with higher atmospheric levels of CO2, the evidence does not support such a notion. It turns out most extinction events have coincided with spikes in atmospheric CO2 levels, and most CO2 spikes have been associated with extinction events. (Sorry for the large size, how can we make images appear smaller on this forum? The usual HTML commands are not working.)

Image

Interestingly, the most recent extinctions have been associated with shorter spikes and lower absolute levels of CO2, close to where we seem to be headed.

The rate of change factor may be more important than the absolute levels, and there is no known time period when CO2 has been released into the atmosphere as fast as it is in the present. The current rate of CO2 rise is 2ppm per year; the highest known previous rate was 0.4ppm per year during a 1000 year period preceding the Paleocene extinction.

We are conducting an experiment on our life-support system that appears to have no precedence, but that the evidence indicates may not work in our favor. So no, I am not convinced "that things might actually be better". And should we really be taking that risk?

Bill Glasheen wrote:
Why - especially since it may not be largely anthropogenic? And chances are change IS the norm. That is the point I keep trying to make (a.k.a. heterostasis).

Again, the evidence does not support you. Here are some repeat graphs that illustrate the evidence for observed temperature fluctuations being influenced by both natural and anthropogenic factors. From about 1970 on it does appear to be largely anthropogenic.

Image

Sure change is the norm, but not all change is positive for humanity.

_________________
Glenn


Last edited by Glenn on Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group