quote From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval climate optimum. Climatologists and historians find it difficult to agree on either the start or end dates of this period. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals. [1]

could this be what we are heading for? going by the pattern we are well over due for one and its unknown if there were cold periods before this time as recording was very iffy. but then again we are also well over due for an ELE asteroid so....

If we are in a warming trend then the oceans would be warmer and there would be more water vapor in the air. One would think then that there would be more precipitation over Antartica and that the ice fields should be increasing if the climate is warming--Antartica is cold --very cold so that it's not going to warm up to where ice melts. Glaciers push to the sea by gravity and the ice shelf over the sea does vary with the seasons as the sea water itself freezes and thaws. If the ice pack over land is increasing then that should be a sign of warming. If the ice pack is decreasing then that is indicative of cooling. probably local effects invalidate these models --what do you all say ??

Where's the Coke?

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

quote From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval climate optimum. Climatologists and historians find it difficult to agree on either the start or end dates of this period. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals. [1]

could this be what we are heading for? going by the pattern we are well over due for one and its unknown if there were cold periods before this time as recording was very iffy. but then again we are also well over due for an ELE asteroid so....

If we are in a warming trend then the oceans would be warmer and there would be more water vapor in the air. One would think then that there would be more precipitation over Antartica and that the ice fields should be increasing if the climate is warming--Antartica is cold --very cold so that it's not going to warm up to where ice melts. Glaciers push to the sea by gravity and the ice shelf over the sea does vary with the seasons as the sea water itself freezes and thaws. If the ice pack over land is increasing then that should be a sign of warming. If the ice pack is decreasing then that is indicative of cooling. probably local effects invalidate these models --what do you all say ??

Where's the Coke?

---

[...]
For a much more reliable and better balanced view of the atmospheric gasses and greenhouse gasses, take a look at the wikipedia peer reviewed article:

Greenhouse Gas

See sections 2 and 3 for the brief details and to see how the numbers are often misrepresented by others.

Anyone can play silly games with numbers if you don't understand what those numbers mean.

[...]
Which of the numbers in Bedard's analysis do you find to be untrue?

The question I have is: can the small amount of Co2 contributed by mankind possibly have an amplified effect ... a powerful effect in keeping this heat "in"

When CO2 was lower we still warmed up enough to melt the glaciers during the last ice age...

I don't think there is much debate or doubt about a recent warming trend--the question is what is the mechanism of this warming and are humans contributing in any large way to the trend ??

The biggest question is whether people will admit that they themselves are responsible and indeed part of the problem.

There is BIG Oil money pushing a lot of FUD around.

In extreme brief:

ALL the natural CO2 cycles, including volcanoes and everything, have had millenia to stablise and balance out. All the new sources of CO2 were exactly balanced by where the CO2 was recaptured.

Over the last two centuries, Man has taken a whole new source of CO2 and then pumped that CO2 into the atmosphere on an ever more rapid industrial scale. The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration very closely matches the world industrial expansion. The rate of increase is very many times greater than ever seen before in the history of the earth. Physics adds the rest of the effects.

One of those is that the CO2 adds a continuous warming effect that then 'keeps more water vapour on the boil'. Hence, the CO2 forces an amplified effect from water vapour.

Reduce the levels of CO2, and water vapour levels will proportionately reduce over just a few days. However, naturally, CO2 lingers in our atmosphere for a century or so. Reduce CO2 output, and from natural processes you'll notice the start of that reduction a few decades later...


Our atmosphere is a very very thin skin over the planet, and very finite, and quite small compared to the volume of pollution we are pumping into it. Mankind is having a very visible and very immediate effect. You can see this and measure it directly, which is what is being done.

However, we need to take positive action sooner before death and expense later. The ozone hole has been stopped from getting worse (CFCs pollution). We've now hit the next most significant world pollution: Industrial CO2.


Look at the numbers for yourself and see where the deception is.

Regards,
Martin

C02 stays around for a long time ?? last time I checked trees and green plants need CO2 to "breathe"
In fact increased CO2 should create better growing conditions for plants--They fix the carbon and release Oxygen --you probably knew that. What is the mechanism by which plants decide to let certain CO2 remain for eons while selecting other younger molecules for photosynthesis ??

---

C02 stays around for a long time ?? last time I checked trees and green plants need CO2 to "breathe"
In fact increased CO2 should create better growing conditions for plants--They fix the carbon and release Oxygen --you probably knew that. What is the mechanism by which plants decide to let certain CO2 remain for eons while selecting other younger molecules for photosynthesis ??

Plants do not 'select' CO2 molecules by 'age'.

Assuming plants will grow 'faster' if the CO2 levels are increased is overly simplistic. Plants depend on other factors other than just CO2 for their growth. Increased CO2 levels only help increased growth a very little.

There's a lot more to the balance.

Over the last many millenia, a number of natural (negative) feedback mechanisms have evolved into a good balancing act to maintain the CO2 levels of two centuries ago. The oceans also act as a huge CO2 reservoir to slow any changes.

More recently, Mankind has exploited new sources of CO2 on an industrial scale to generate an increasing imbalance far in excess of what the natural feedback mechanisms can cope with.

The extra CO2 that plants will utilise because of increased CO2 concentration is obliterated many times over by continued industrial expansion.

And worse still, we're even chopping down the tropical forests on an industrial scale!

And then there are various positive feedback mechanisms as we push the CO2 levels ever higher, some of which are already happening.


The story for water vapour is very different. Water molecules get recycled between the atmosphere and the land/ocean very rapidly due to precipitation, condensation, and then to be evaporated oncemore, all in the timescale of just days. There is no such rapid recycling of CO2. We do not have any "CO2 rain".


The nothern sea passages are completely ice-free for the first time since recorded history.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Russian permafrost begins to thaw:

Rising temperatures cause Russian permafrost to thaw, leading to an even faster rate of global warming.

For the first time in tens of thousands of years, Siberia's frozen land is undergoing a thaw. Scientist warn that the process could release billions of tonnes of carbon, which could quickly turn into greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and further accelerate global warming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f90_1190110703

2.5 minutes

Please excuse the translators choice of words.



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Fact. CO2 has yet to be proven a major cause of global warming.
Fact. More CO2 was in the atmosphere in the age of coal burning than there is now.

Citations?
Some of that CO2 has been absorbed into the oceans, which will re-release it as they warm up.

CO2 levels may be out of recent natural levels but are they out of natural levels from other eras?

What eras? We know in the very distant past that Earth was uninhabitable, and became suitable for the forms of life that lived then, and died out, and replaced by other lifeforms that could adapt through all of the variable conditions and cycles that Nature imposed.
Only the last few million years are relevant to the lifeform that exist (briefly!) today, and CO2 levels are much much higher now than at any time over the last million years, and rocketing upwards.

Indeed climate change is real. The question is...
Is it natural or Man made?
We can not answer this question yet.

This has been answered, and accepted in the IPCC Report, which is extremely conservative subject to pressure from developing countries to tone down the conclusions.
The graph of CO2 levels over that last million years shows undulating changes, then you get to the last few years and it looks like a vertical spike, well above anything before and obviously an anomaly.

Over the last century medical advances have caused the population to quadruple. Half of the worlds oil has been converted to CO2, locked up over 100,000,000 years and released in this century. In the last few decades average temperatures have shot up anomalously. This is having consequences and we are experiencing them.
You plot all these on a graph together and you see that they are coincident, and CO2 is the main factor.

You might find it difficult to accept the role that CO2 plays in limiting the heat escaping the Earth, but that won't change the fact that it does.

We do not have data from billions of years ago to compare to so we can not know if it is natural or man made.

That is largely irrelevant now as the Earth was practically a different planet.

Those who believe everything the media/government is saying will instantly jump to the conclusion of yes its man made but they CAN NOT and WILL NOT know for many years whether it is man or nature.

Media want to make money by selling stories that sell. Truth and science is often a casualty to get readership.
Governments want to stay in power. They will not make unpopular decisions unless the are dragged kicking and screaming to the evidence where it can then bop them on the nose.
People are lazy and selfish things, driven to consume and survive at any cost. They want to make money for security, keep warm (or cool), go to work, eat, raise families, buy nice things, gadgets and labour-saving devices, go on holidays, spend and have fun, drive to nice places and defaecate. All of this has a cost, and when multiplied by 6 billion times, has a very LARGE cost.

Do a course in physics, chemistry, geology, astrophysics, climatology and understand for yourself. Read Scientific American, Nature, New Scientist, National Geographic, as well as good sites like the BBC.

Science does not lie.

I bet you drive an SUV.

Global warming is a natural cycle helped along by man.
The big question is how much man is helping.

Whatever befalls the Earth
Befalls the sons and daughters of the Earth
We did not weave the Web of Life
We are merely a strand in it
Whatever we do to the Web
We do to ourselves. . . .

Seattle
Suquamish Chief

On a second side note some of these environmentally friendly ideas are to laugh at. (Hydrogen powered cars use twice as much energy as gas powered cars. This in turn produces more heat.)
Please don’t assume until we know.

H2 Powered cars take MORE energy? I guess it depends on where the energy comes from. Solar powered H2 extractors are in prototype stages from a number of vendors. This would allow you to use energy that ALREADY comes down to earth (and in turned in to heat mostly) to extract H2 from good old H2O (and release nice O2 in the deal.) How does that use MORE energy?!? Maybe you were thinking of the ethanol issue.

Even if we don't know the cause (and the human factor is the most likely one in my view) that does not stop us from taking action. Limiting energy use does not have any bad effects. Converting away from using petrochemicals as a fuel source is a good thing from economic and security points of view even if Global Warming was not an issue.

Well I guess if you think that Mr. Robertson has a direct link to G-d then take his word as The Word, otherwise well ... do what your doing (seek validation.) Is the Sun getting hotter? Maybe. The Sun is just any old star and they are not stable. We know from historical records that the Sun can effect the clime. But the "we can't do nothing about it." comment is untrue.

OK what can you do? Even simple things. Limit use of lights. Switch to low energy lighting. When running SETI@home, turn off the monitor. Carpool to work. Plan and batch your trips. When you trade in your car get one that gets better MPG. Take public transport when you can. Install solar energy systems. Insulate your home. Replace your filters. I'm sure these are just the "tip of the [melting] iceberg." Not only are these things going to help with G. W. but help with your bottom line as well.

---

H2 Powered cars take MORE energy?

Use horses. They are carbon efficient and quite comfortable with the right saddle.

---

Join Team England

Team England Forum

Use horses. They are carbon efficient

Well except for their gas out the rear end! lol

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

Use horses. They are carbon efficient

Well except for their gas out the rear end! lol

That depends on what you feed them on...!

Nae!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The trouble with using the Sun to make energy is that that energy is limited. If it electrolyzes water acres and acres of land or sea would have to be set aside for that purpose and the ground underneath would always be shaded. An old starbook said that solar radiation is about 1.5 horsepower per square yard (1.34 kilowatts per square meter). So an acre (0.405 hectare) of land would produce only about 7260 horsepower (5416 kilowatts). That, of course means clear skies. I don't know how much clouds attenuate but it's considerable. Also is the Sun is not overhead we have the cosine problem. And we have something called night. I don't know how practical it would be to drill something very big and deep so that the Earth's internal heat could be harnessed. Could we blow up a nuclear bomb several miles deep, seal up the hole and keep it from collapsing, pump water in and use the steam? But it would be contaminated. Maybe lots of plastic explosives.

---

Climate change goal 'unreachable'
Rather pessimistic report for the future.

The advisers said it was unlikely that levels of greenhouse gases could be kept low enough to avoid a projected temperature rise of 2C (36F).

Current science suggests that at that point billions of people will face water shortages, the world's food supplies could be threatened and widespread extinction could be triggered.

Neither scientist believed that the world would achieve the goal of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of stabilising emissions by around 2015.

Of course the mainstream science may be wrong. There is still huge uncertainty in climate modelling.

In a recent survey of climate scientists conducted by a leading sceptical scientist, Dr Roger Pielke Sen, 18% of those who responded said the IPCC had exaggerated.

But 65% said the IPCC had got it right. And 17% said the prognosis was even worse.

Regardless of your opinion, the question to ask is "What if I'm wrong?"

You believe humans are the primary culprit:
-right: we take action and use resources more efficiently, hopefully saving the planet.
-wrong: we take action and use resources more efficiently

You believe humans have nothing to do with it:
-right: we do nothing, and nothing happens
-wrong: we do nothing, and a potentially catastrophic ice-age occurs due to shifts in oceanic currents spurred by global warming leading to mass starvation and death.

Now I'll pose the question "When has it ever hurt a business or nation to use its resources more efficiently?"

Last I checked (and I'm an industrial engineer) the US was still trying to catch up to Japan after it learned how to be efficient (from Deming... who the US refused to listen to) in a post-WWII era of limited resources.

It seems to me that if nothing else, global warming can give our country an excuse to be a cheaper manufacturer of goods though using less resources.

Sure it costs more upfront, but the benefits of technology reap dividends FOREVER.

Regardless of your opinion, the question to ask is "What if I'm wrong?"

You believe humans are the primary culprit:
-right: we take action and use resources more efficiently, hopefully saving the planet.
-wrong: we take action and use resources more efficiently

You believe humans have nothing to do with it:
-right: we do nothing, and nothing happens
-wrong: we do nothing, and a potentially catastrophic ice-age occurs due to shifts in oceanic currents spurred by global warming leading to mass starvation and death.

Now I'll pose the question "When has it ever hurt a business or nation to use its resources more efficiently?"

Last I checked (and I'm an industrial engineer) the US was still trying to catch up to Japan after it learned how to be efficient (from Deming... who the US refused to listen to) in a post-WWII era of limited resources.

It seems to me that if nothing else, global warming can give our country an excuse to be a cheaper manufacturer of goods though using less resources.

Sure it costs more upfront, but the benefits of technology reap dividends FOREVER.

I like this way of thinking.

---

Regardless of your opinion, the question to ask is "What if I'm wrong?"

You believe humans are the primary culprit:
-right: we take action and use resources more efficiently, hopefully saving the planet.
-wrong: we take action and use resources more efficiently

You believe humans have nothing to do with it:
-right: we do nothing, and nothing happens
-wrong: we do nothing, and a potentially catastrophic ice-age occurs due to shifts in oceanic currents spurred by global warming leading to mass starvation and death.

Now I'll pose the question "When has it ever hurt a business or nation to use its resources more efficiently?"

Last I checked (and I'm an industrial engineer) the US was still trying to catch up to Japan after it learned how to be efficient (from Deming... who the US refused to listen to) in a post-WWII era of limited resources.

It seems to me that if nothing else, global warming can give our country an excuse to be a cheaper manufacturer of goods though using less resources.

Sure it costs more upfront, but the benefits of technology reap dividends FOREVER.

I like this way of thinking.

The issue is: Will we, as a nation, do stupid things that will have severely adverse effects on the economy when the original premise is likely to be substantially false. I give you the Y2K Brouhaha. I give you the Ethanol disaster which produces lower mileage fuel,creates shortages of boutique fuels, probably uses almost as much petroleum energy to produce as it yields and doubles the cost of many food items that rely on grain (eggs, meat).

I think that there is everything right with conservation. And there is everything right with wanting to quit buying oil from politically unstable Cartels. Just the economics of bearing the cost of this feed stock and passing it on into our end user energy prices and production of food and products is incentive enough as well.

It is probably a good idea that we not continue to dump combustion by-products (sulphur, heavy metals, particulates, etc ) into the atmosphere or tons of scrubber waste into our landfills. The newly industrializing nations will be doing that for us. So there is enough incentive to quit burning fossil fuels without the "Global Warming Religion".

A little national leadership is required. We need to move to a Hydrogen Economy but do it while considering all of the downstream consequences. Nuclear Power is most likely the answer to the primary form of energy needed to supply energy for Transportation, Home Heating and Electricity. We should proceed with the best and safest plans to massively deploy a revitalized nuclear energy infrastructure. We don't want to create a mess due to poor plans for safety and control of nuclear waste products. Energy drives the economy: industrial production, transportation, comfort, food etc. Government seldom does a good job in these areas but maybe we should demand that they do --perhaps a TVA-like thrust or a kick start via funding to a National Energy Consortium

What do you all think.

---

I was just going to start some homework on this subject (self-imposed homework not anything for school) This thread is quite interesting.

If i confine my "consensus gathering" to just this forum thread i think the coprorate summary reads:


1. Global Warming Is Real.
2. Global Warming Is > 50% man made.
3. There is no "controversy" about Global Warming within the scientific community, the "controversy" comes from politicians / theologians / businesses.


True?

I assume also:

1. Global Warming is bad
2. Global warming at its current rate will increase until earth is inhospitable. (if this one isnt true at least to some degree then i'm guessing there wouldn't be any fuss)

True?

You're hounoured with the first (of this year) restrained reply from myself!...

I was just going to start some homework on this subject (self-imposed homework not anything for school) This thread is quite interesting.

If i confine my "consensus gathering" to just this forum thread i think the coprorate summary reads:


1. Global Warming Is Real.

if you mean abnormal Global Warming, I agree. We've had lots of "Climate Change" over various timescales. What we see now is a long way off the scale...

2. Global Warming Is > 50% man made.

Various natural systems have been in balance for millenia. Since man discovered industrialisation and also industrial farming, there has been an increasing imbalance over the last 200 years. This is far greater than any of the worst volcanic eruptions for example.

3. There is no "controversy" about Global Warming within the scientific community, the "controversy" comes from politicians / theologians / businesses.

There is always 'controversy' in science. That is the nature of Science. What you then get is extremely conservative declarations that you can then put some trust in. Regarding Global Warming, there is an unusal amount of positive consensus. You might say that the situation is "blindingly obvious". As obvious as your pan of water boils faster if you better insulate the sides of the pan!

True?

True enough.

The greater issue is "how quickly" and "how quickly" we can 'fix' the problem.

I assume also:

1. Global Warming is bad

Not necessarily so. It's just rather bad for our present human way of life.

Lots of existing life will perish. That will then give evolution a chance to come up with something better and more 'vigorous'. That may well not include us.

2. Global warming at its current rate will increase until earth is inhospitable. (if this one isnt true at least to some degree then i'm guessing there wouldn't be any fuss)

True?

True enough for us. It may be a Godsend for some other species to then become dominant.


Regardless, energy and life will become more expensive for us until we make a better balance.

Uncomfortable conditions or resource scarcity will cause desperate wars... We are seeing some of that now.


So, how do we turn business around to save ourselves and our one planet?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Regardless of your opinion, the question to ask is "What if I'm wrong?"

You believe humans are the primary culprit:
-right: we take action and use resources more efficiently, hopefully saving the planet.
-wrong: we take action and use resources more efficiently

You believe humans have nothing to do with it:
-right: we do nothing, and nothing happens
-wrong: we do nothing, and a potentially catastrophic ice-age occurs due to shifts in oceanic currents spurred by global warming leading to mass starvation and death.

This leaves out several feasible additional options, one of which:

What if 'nothing we do can make a difference'? This avoids the debate of who is at fault, but looks more directly at our ability (or lack thereof) to make an effective change since we lack the technology to plug volcanoes and eliminate natural (significant) sources of greenhouse gasses.

In that case the more we do, the more damage we do to our economy, the more inflation we experience (due to increased costs of the 'compliance efforts'), the lower our standard of living must become, the more unemployment we experience (because you cannot buy as much if everything costs more, thus consumption decreases, manufacturing decreases, fewer workers are required)

---

It's not too many computers, it's a lack of circuit breakers for this room. But we can fix it :)

Since this topic appears to be moribund during our record snowfalls here in the US, I think that Daddio should get in the last word.

---