Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


(This is to the above posts prior to this, croc covered this subject pretty well.)

CO2 doesn't dissapate in the ice. It remains trapped for as ong as it takes in air pockets.

Methane dissapates quickly in the atmosphere, not CO2, which takes much longer to be removed from the atmosphere. It is absorbed by the oceans (which acidifies the oceans) but the oceans can only absorb so much.

It doesn't leach out of the air pockets in the ice so that point is mute

Wow. Deforestation is bollocks? Thats a big thing to say. I hope you have masses of evidence that it is. Enough to counter all the evidence that deforestation is not bollocks.

The cows are contributing to this, but that more to do with what they eat. Buffalos (and indeed wild cattle) do not eat the same things and as such there methane release is a lot lower.

There would be a large transitional change from boreal to coniferous forests. Most deciduous trees take decades to grow to the size if the conifers it would replace.

Other (wild) plants do not take place, crops do, crops absorb less CO2 per acre than forest and in the rainforest not only is the forest burnt clear (releasing stored CO2) and then there is only 2 or 3 growing seasons, before they realise that rainforest soil is actually appalling for crop growth and have to abandon it (by clearing the forests again). Now the soil is devoid of nutrients and useless for healthy plant growth.
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


It's to do with the proportion of the radioactive isotope in the sample compared to what is in the atmosphere. Cosmic rays constanly bombard the atmosphere producing a reactant (neutrons) that then react with Nitrogen to form Carbon-14 and a proton so its levels have been stable for millions if not billions of years.

It's used more for dating organic matter, especially plants, who photosynthesis carbon as carbon dioxide. When they photosynthesise they 'incorporate' approximately the same proportion that occurs in the atmosphere. When they die, if their organic matter is recoverable, you can tell by how much Carbon-14 is left how old it is, following the equation;

Number of Carbon-14 remaining after decay = Number of Carbon-14 when sample produced(same as todays atmospheric make-up) x e to the power of (minus decay constant times time)

You rearrange it to make time (t) the subject and can find hopw long ago the sample was preserved.

We can assume that the Carbon-14 concentration in the atmosphere is constant as it has a relatively short half life and the bombardment from cosmic rays has been pretty constant throughout Earth's history.

P.S. A little Christmas present from me ;)
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
15



If this is true you must have hated the Bush administration. They used our taxes for lots and lots of secret and ILLEGAL government programs.
 

TheViper

Distinguished
Nov 26, 2006
2,120
0
20,160
147

I've hated every administration since the early 1900's.

When the read and uphold the Constitution as they are sworn into office to do, they'll gain my support again.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
OK, read these links
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
What these links are saying is, the timing can and is probably off from what the CO2 found in the ice vs when the ice was formed, and effects the overall findings.
Also, they say its normal to have escalated CO2 in the atmospkere the further we move away from an Ice age, which was 12000 yrs ago?
To do such a minute mearusement of the last few years skews these older findings, as the ice and whats in the air dont correlate correctly, and is what it seems these people are trying to currently do, which you simply cant do, at least according to my links.
As for carbon testing, theres other things found within the atmosphere, and temps etc that can vary these findings as well, and my point is, everything effects everything else, and when you pin point like whats being done, and not include all scenarios, youll often find you have to make corrections, sometimes drastic, and again, this isnt something thats included, only worse case.
My links also point out, the temps and the CO2 levels can vary by 1 thousand years, so again no correlation here, yet they continue to try, and then give the worse scenarios.
What I like particularly about my links is, theyre somewhat safe, meaning factual only, with little mention of global warming, just some numbers and explanations, so no sullying, political or otherwise.
Much of the argument is, whats driving all this, CO2 or temps, and thats very important, since our pitiful contributions wont mean a thing if the planet is naturally heating, as is shown in my links.
So, heat causes greater CO2 within our atmosphere, not the other way around, and the lack of it also causes the drops.
A chicken and egg scenario, and to say otherwise is to change all historical work prior to this "global warming" theory.
So, heat first, then naturally occuring rises in CO2, and theres nothing we can do to stop it, as its happened time and again


The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions.[69] To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:


What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.
That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.[70]
That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.
That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.


If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old.
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio.asp
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


The third link says that the rises in CO2 are either in phase or 800 years behind and as such there is a correlation whether it is in phase or 800 years behind.

We are in an Ice-Age and the most recent Glacial Maximum (which may be what you are referring too) was 20000 years ago not 12000.

If feel it would be of benefit to you to learn about carbon dating before you talk more about it. There are other things in the atmosphere but we're aren't talking about the other things in organic matter, we are talking about Carbon in the organic matter. Temperature does not effect decay apart from in a few elements ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates.3F ) and none of those mentioned to have seasonal variance are Carbon-14.

I also like realclimate.org for this one - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ , an update for the link you showed me. I particularly liked this - 'On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature.' So this more recent link is saying that CO2 increases have occurred before the temperature increases.

As far as the links being free from interference you were doing well until the final link which is most definitely 'sullied'.

Our contributions could hardly be seen as pitiful, I don't see how more than 500,000 Megatonnes of Carbon released into the atmosphere could be seen as a pitiful amount.

Right, lets be clear, we are talking about carbon-dating, or more formally radiocarbon-dating. We are not talking about the dating of rocks. So the point about the rocks is not valid in this argument as they are different decay mechanisms.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
If the last true ice age were 20000 yrs ago, why does man have paintings of mamoths on cave walls?
And, we know the last mamoths died 12-7000 yrs ago, and its usually due to ice age, climate change, dramatic as well
As to CO2, alllll the previous work done before global warming was wrong on this?
Interesting they couldnt be wrong, as thatd tho their entire theory out the door.
And what claims do they make for the raising of CO2 previously, all those times, which are numerous?
Carbon dating is effected by temps, atmosphere etc.
If you take one theory in particular, like the Cariibean astroid, surely itd effect it?
Mixing the elements? Exposing them to extreme heat? Lifting isotopes into the air?
Creating its own isotopes? And, according to those theorists, this too may have happened numerous times as well, to help explain the epochs thru evolution?
The web some are weaving, the knowledge thrown out the door, the broader assumptions with no consideration of even like thinking effects on other theories etc, and all being held out of our reach, so no scritiny can be brought, Im still not buying it
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,033
0
20,810
5


There has been much geological evidence regarding the most recent ice age, with most agreeing that it peaked ~20k years ago, and ended ~10k years ago. With the ice age ending, the mammoths (and others) that had evolved to live in that climate slowly died out as the environment no longer favoured them. As to the cave paintings, some were from groups of Homo Sapiens and some are thought to have been done by Neanderthals. Both of those species were around during the last ice age, so....

Not many people in the sciences have any concerns with the overall accuracy of radiocarbon dating, there are some quibbles about how accurate it is ~500K years ago.

Is the earth warming? Well, that is what happens post-ice age... Do people have an effect on this warming? Well, there may have been as many as 5M people on earth when the last ice age ended, but they used the fall in sea levels to spread to most of the rest of the world (or so the theories propose) and not there are more that 6B people. During the last ice age people were simple hunter-gatherers, now we tend to use mechanized agriculture and domesticated animal production. So how can our much larger population NOT be having some effect on the earth's environment? As recently as 100 years ago, most people used horse drawn wagons, or ox carts, or 'shanks pony' for transportation. And now? How many 100's of millions of vehicles are in use? Again, how can we NOT have some effect on the earth's environment?
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
OK, we do have impact, but of what proportion? We cant even come up with those numbers, as we simply dont know the amounts of pollen which Im sure is close to our contributions to atmosphere additions, let alone earthquakes, fires, high winds, volcanoes etcThe arid areas have increased hugely, causing the high winds to have huge effects of atmosphere, and Im sure someone will say that its to low, but it has effects as well, and arid areas have increased dramatically before weve had cars etc.
When these winds happen, it has far more effect than all the nasty pollution China kicks out, and people die from it.
I guess, my point is, all things change, thus radio carbon dating, temps overall throut earths history etc.
We dont have hard numbers on a few things that jump out at me, we have privately controlled numbers from a group of people that insist on keeping them private, we have evidence of them fudging those numbers.
We have evidence of discredation of those with differing numbers, and if were ever to find out the real truth, and how much this makes a difference, the direction were heading in by their own procedural paths, Im just not sure how well get there from here.
My points of the buffalo, the plants that take old growth trees places etc, none of this is talked about, their contributions, good or bad. If they cant do this, then theyre failing us, and by not showing what they do have in a fair open way lends to this
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,033
0
20,810
5


JDJ, I don't know any 'truths' or 'facts', and doubt anyone that says that they do. Once someone espouses a 'truth' they lose all credibility in my opinion.

Recently, the CSIRO presented a paper to a climate group detailing the last 2500 years of data based on their ice core samples from Antarctica, but that represents just a small sample of the total cores that they have... I asked a mate about this, who said 'Friend, science takes time'. So we had a beer, then I asked him if we'd have enough time for the sciences to tell us how bad off we are, if at all. He just shook his head. So we had another beer. He's a bit younger than I, but not by more than a decade, so he left me with the feeling that I really should worry about my son's future, and also for his childrens' future.

I also know that the acidification in our oceans is rising, and is getting very close to levels that will stop calcification. Woops... There go the reefs and the shellfish... I like my prawns, spiny lobsters and oysters. Is there anything that I, as one person can do? Australia is running out of water, so relocation options are limited. Guess that I could raise a few vegies, maybe a chook or two, but all of that takes water. I could sell my car, but then there goes the occasional trip to the hardware for necessary repairs. Kinda hard to get 8x2's on a bus...

So I think I'll go out to the lounge, open a beer, and watch the paint dry (Aus vs Pak cricket).
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
heheh yea, well dont be surprised when 1/4 the ocean dies, and 1/3 the land as well.
Things can change, and itll take more than carbon credits to do so.
While my personal beliefs also see this happening, its sad none the less, and to have what got us into this anyways going on is really no surprise again.
It wont be me or you or all of us to change/fix this, but from what youre saying, and what I believe, is, we need a miracle, one that we cant do.
And that too doesnt surprise me
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


No the last ice age wasn't 20,000 year ago. The last Glacial Maximum was 20,000 years ago.

I fail to see how all the previous work on CO2 was wrong. It's spectral characteristics, in that it absorbs in the infrared range continues to hold.

Carbon dating is unaffected by temperatures. once again I direct you to my link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio [...] y_rates.3F . Radiocarbon dating is unaffected by temperature.

Nobody used radiocarbon dating on the Yucatan impact that was, according to the leading theory, the driving force behind the extinct of dinosaurs. Carbon-14's half life is only 5570 or so years, after 65 million years I doubt that there would even be two atoms of it left in a sample. It certainly would have lifted elements and isotopes into the atmosphere, but I doubt that the effects would linger for 65 million years. Creating isotopes is a tricky business, as it's along the same for of vein as creating new elements and the energies required could possibly have been produced by the substantial energy from a meteorite impact, but any isotopes produced would be so unstable that they would likely decay in under a second, and would be lucky to last a minute.

OK, we do have impact, but of what proportion? We cant even come up with those numbers, as we simply dont know the amounts of pollen which Im sure is close to our contributions to atmosphere additions, let alone earthquakes, fires, high winds, volcanoes etcThe arid areas have increased hugely, causing the high winds to have huge effects of atmosphere, and Im sure someone will say that its to low, but it has effects as well, and arid areas have increased dramatically before weve had cars etc.
When these winds happen, it has far more effect than all the nasty pollution China kicks out, and people die from it.
I guess, my point is, all things change, thus radio carbon dating, temps overall throut earths history etc.
We dont have hard numbers on a few things that jump out at me, we have privately controlled numbers from a group of people that insist on keeping them private, we have evidence of them fudging those numbers.
We have evidence of discredation of those with differing numbers, and if were ever to find out the real truth, and how much this makes a difference, the direction were heading in by their own procedural paths, Im just not sure how well get there from here.
My points of the buffalo, the plants that take old growth trees places etc, none of this is talked about, their contributions, good or bad. If they cant do this, then theyre failing us, and by not showing what they do have in a fair open way lends to this
Pollen in the atmosphere? I don't see how this has anything to do with this debate. Pollen was far more numerous 200 years ago, or during the little ice age, or the medieval warm period than it is now, so what of it?

We do have a large impact. Large enough to change the composition of atmosphere. Large enough to mean mountains have been removed from the landscape. Large enough to see the damage done to the Amazon from space. Volcanoes produce approximately 231Mt of carbon a year, compared to human activity which releases 10,000Mt or so a year. As I mentioned previously, in the past volcanic activity has been balanced as the natural cycles absorb the carbon and sulphur etc. produced.

You mentioned that arid areas increased dramatically before we had cars, I hope you have some evidence to back this up. High winds are not normally caused by arid areas, but rather atmospheric convection caused by the sun heating different parts of the planet by different amounts.

Maybe the scientific community shouldn't keep the numbers private however, many feel that climate sceptics are just wasting their time, by making spurious requests for the data. The data may or may not have been fudged. Processed certainly, because the raw data is useless for studying, so it has to be processed to make it useful.

Actually I did mention you buffalo and plant growth points. Buffalo and wild cattle have different feeding habits compared to domesticated cattle, and as such their methane pollution is nil or negligible. Plant growth you mentioned was about renewed growth after the clearance of rainforests. Lets set this straight. Firstly, the burning of the rainforest (how they're usually cleared) releases all the carbon the plants have absorbed during there lifetime, so there is a release of carbon dioxide. Secondly, the crops that replace them have a lower carbon dioxide absorption per acre than rainforest. Thirdly, at least some of the carbon they remove from the atmosphere is re-released upon harvesting. Fourthly, The crops only have two or three growing seasons before the poor soil of the rainforest is out of nutrients. Fifthly, Rainforest does not re-grow when the crops leave because there are no nutrients left in the soil. The only plants that can survive are little ones that can cope with the low nutrient conditions of the soil whom don't absorb as much CO2 per acre as rainforests.

heheh yea, well dont be surprised when 1/4 the ocean dies, and 1/3 the land as well.
Things can change, and itll take more than carbon credits to do so.
While my personal beliefs also see this happening, its sad none the less, and to have what got us into this anyways going on is really no surprise again.
It wont be me or you or all of us to change/fix this, but from what youre saying, and what I believe, is, we need a miracle, one that we cant do.
And that too doesnt surprise me
Yes you are right, it won't you who has to change this, but it is people like you who stand in the way of progress. And if you see this happening, why the heck can't you stand aside and let progress happen. We do need more than carbon credits, we need action, but a properly implemented emissions trading scheme could be a catalyst to change. The miracle you mention would be sceptics accepting the overwhelming evidence that this is happening and that it is man-made and that we should answer for our past mistakes. That's the miracle. We don't need divine intervention to help us fix this.

We need to fix this ourselves.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
I live in California, and no, pollen wasnt more prevalent back then, as today, we use our tech to hyper grow our produce, so it is with pollen as well, and Im talking amounts as well, to get a % of what were dumping, to casually toss it aside, as surely it effects all this is wrong
Having huge amounts of isotopes, heat, not just heat, but at least surrounding the impact, elemental changing heat, plus all the debris tossed, had to have huge effects, not just on the carbon dating, and should have taken centuries to clear up, as it dumped more than we could or ever have all at once, so again, the theory weakens.
If an area of 100000 square mile had elemental changing heat on the surface of the earth was here for even a matter of 1 minute, it had impact ,and it wouldnt immediately sink to the ground either.
The impact in the carribean was far greater than anything weve ever discovered, save the possible impact to create the moon itself, if that theory holds.
The impact in Siberia in 1908 was far far greater than the Hiroshima bomb, add to that all the other impacts we know of, plus the ones we dont.

"The shock production of carbon dioxide caused by the destruction of carbonate rocks would have led to a sudden greenhouse effect.[24] Over a longer period of time, sunlight would have been blocked from reaching the surface of the earth by the dust particles in the atmosphere, cooling the surface dramatically. Photosynthesis by plants would also have been interrupted, affecting the entire food chain.[25][26]
In February 2008, a team of researchers led by Sean Gulick at the University of Texas at Austin’s Jackson School of Geosciences used seismic images of the crater to determine that the impactor landed in deeper water than was previously assumed. They argued that this would have resulted in increased sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere. According to the press release, that “could have made the impact deadlier in two ways: by altering climate (sulfate aerosols in the upper atmosphere can have a cooling effect) and by generating acid rain (water vapor can help to flush the lower atmosphere of sulfate aerosols, causing acid rain).” [27]
Some critics, including paleontologist Robert Bakker, argue that such an impact would have killed frogs as well as dinosaurs, yet the frogs survived the extinction event.[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
This is far more dramatic than anything weve done, by a 1000 fold, yet, the dinosaurs survived this, and they were far more susceptable to change we ever have been.

Paleoclimatology
The ratio of 18O to 16O in ice and deep sea cores is temperature dependent, and can be used as a proxy measure for reconstructing climate change. During colder periods of the Earth's history such as during the ice ages, 16O is preferentially evaporated from the colder oceans, leaving the slightly heavier and more sluggish 18O behind. Organisms such as foraminifera which combine oxygen dissolved in the surrounding water with carbon and calcium to build their shells therefore incorporate the temperature-dependent 18O to 16O ratio. When these organisms die, they settle out on the sea bed, preserving a long and invaluable record of global climate change through much of the Quaternary. Similarly, ice cores on land are enriched in the heavier 18O relative to 16O during warmer climatic phases (interglacials) as more energy is available for the evaporation of the heavier 18O isotope. The oxygen isotope record preserved in the ice cores is therefore a `mirror` of the record contained in ocean sediments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_analysis

So, we see that analysis is effected by temps, as the elements themselves are , which Ive maintained from the beginning. So temps come first, as Ive said, as this too lends to that, and CO2 later. Not proofs here, but is against everything theyve claimed so far, but looks good for their model.
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Even if that is so, pollen doesn't effect the whole atmosphere in the way that Carbon Dioxide does. Many cultivated crops have lower pollen counts because it could be seen as a waste of energy. Maize, the most popular crop in the world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereal#Production ) has pollen that falls within a few metres of the plant itself.

Right, let me reiterate. Nobody has used carbon dating to date the Chicxulub Impact. Radiocarbon dating has no use for the study of events that occurred millions of years ago.

The statements about Tunguska and Chicxulub are all well and good but what do they have to do with modern global warming?

The dinosaurs did not survive this Chicxulub Impact and/or the effects on the environment. It is widely regarded as the REASON that they went extinct. 'The shock production of carbon dioxide... would have led to a sudden greenhouse effect' Well now. Our release of carbon dioxide is less sudden, but seems to be more than the amount released - ' It is estimated that between 200 and 3000 cubic kilometres of sediments vaporised, releasing 35 to 700 million tons of sulphur and 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere' ( http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/090818_Chicxulub_su/index_EN scroll down to Chicxulub asteroid crater.) Considering thus far into Industrialisation we've released 500 billion tonnes of Carbon into the atmosphere this seems to imply that the impact released approximately 2% of what we've released so far in terms of Carbon emissions. The fact it was a asteroid impact meant it was more destructive, releasing sulphites etc. and destroying vast swathes of land but could we be heading that way? If we continue as we are it's possible, perhaps even likely, that many species will become extinct.

You maintained that Carbon-14 is effected by temperature and pressure changes. This piece concerns isotopes of Oxygen not Carbon. Radiocarbon dating is not effected by temperature changes. Nobody claimed that Oxygen wasn't effected by temperature, indeed we believe it is as described in your extract, but that's Oxygen and not Carbon.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
My point is, that the amounts vary by temps, and all these events have happened thruout history. Heat came first, then the oxyegen levels, which obviously didnt change for years on end, so if the temps were rising because of non man made events then, and heat did come first, then how can you base your entire reasoning on the opposite?

They do, CO2 didnt come first, heat did. Elements as we read them are effected by heat, as well as isotopes, iridium etc.The past beliefs ten years ago was heat came first, it wasnt until global warming this seemed to casual change. Especially since its all been dumped down onto carbon.

As for pollen, has anyone done a study on its impact? Whats the heat collective abilities for it? Its far higher than CO2 in the air, is there an addition to all this?

As for the dinosaurs, recheck all this, as they did survive the impact.

As for sulfur, this too needs to be seen as an impact/check, as its worse that CO2, and was one of the first things we sought to eliminate because of smog and heat issues, which far outweighed the CO2 emissions.
Someone earlier mentioned that elements werent effected by temps, and our readings werent either, but thats simply notr true, and I include this, and also show how heat comes first, not CO2, as old models show, as do newer models, its just assumed its CO2 first now with GW.
What Im saying is, theyre working with a childs mentality overall, meaning this is all unknown for the greater part. Theyve held the info from us, theyve changed their POV ina critical matter to prove their point regarding heat or CO2 causing which is which.
If heat comes first, it can then release the CO2 we have here in other ways, until it peters out, and the temps lower, reducing the CO2 levels, thats the old model.
The new model says, CO2 comes first, but how? The release of CO2 in the order of magnitude comes from where? Theres no explanation without having to have exacting perfect reasons for it, unless the heat sets it all off, which again, is the old model.
So, now we get into their approximations, which we arent privy to. Whats our real contributions to the problem?
If its been a natural raising of temps, itll release the CO2 as it always has in the past, and the current model supports this, or if our added CO2 amounts are actually so much greater, theyd show up on the latest charts, but, those charts show the same thing happening as it has in the past, same levels, same temps, so whats changed?
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,033
0
20,810
5


Please show us the datasets that you're using to support your theories... Not links to cherry-picked websites, but the datasets you personally have used.
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,033
0
20,810
5


Already in the re-cycle bin, mate. Sorry, but messy places upset me, so mine is not messy.
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Once again it'll be point by point...

With regard to Carbon dating your point is invalid. Radiocarbon dating is not effected by temperature, this has to be the third or fourth time I have stated this.

You'd be correct about CO2 coming first if this were a natural phenomenon, well correct at some points, according to http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html , which is after all a link you provided me - 'According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.' So it lagged when the earth was cooling, and was either in phase or lagged upto 800yrs when warming. Also, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ states that – 'On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years.' So recently CO2 has led temperature not vice versa.

'[Pollen] is far higher than CO2 in the air' – in what way? In quantity or altitude. I'd be quite surprised if you could show me that there is more than 500,000Mt of pollen in that atmosphere, let alone the total amount of CO2 which is some 73% more than that. Pollen is a large particle, compared to the molecules and while it does probably absorb heat for the most part pollen bimbles along at a few hundred feet before it lands. Pollen doesn't work in the same manner that atomic scale structures work at so it's characteristics are completely different.

Sulphur Dioxide causes acid rain, it's also used to make sulphuric acid which it forms in clouds. It is not a greenhouse gas, so while the acid rain implications of it are indeed worse than CO2, as was its smog issues, now we need to act on Carbon Dioxide emissions.

As I mentioned previously, with links to support my claim, and earlier in this post that Carbon dating wasn't effected by temperatures. I never that elements weren't, merely that the radioactive decay in this case isn't. There are cases where radioactive decay is effected by temperature and some that have seasonal variance, but this isn't the case for Carbon-14 decay.

It's generally seen as a good sign when people change their point of view in light of new discoveries and evidence to suggest that their previous views were incorrect or that the new point of view is more in touch with reality. Without this we'd still believe that the Earth is flat, that there are witches, or that we are the centre of the universe. They have held information from us, but the reason is outlined to some extent in a previous post, in that the scientific community felt sceptics were just making spurious requests to waste their time.

'CO2 comes first, but how?' You could easily ask the opposite about the older view. Heat comes first, but how? The CO2 comes from us, from our use of fossil fuels, and the order of magnitude of our release of it is large, 35% more of it in the atmosphere large. The CO2 component in the atmosphere is larger than has been seen in the last 400,000 years, and the temperatures have surpassed temperatures in recent history.

Our real contributions? Massive, huge, most likely all of it. I'll go out on a limb and say that we have caused this, that it's all down to us. I still fail to see how you can reject the idea that 500,000Mt of CO2, which may I remind you again increased the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere by 35%, won't effect the climate, when we've known it's effect on the environment for 'more than 100 years'.

That's the issue, it's not a natural increase of temperature, it's man-made. The CO2 we have added (let me reiterate CO2 levels increased from 284ppm pre-industrial to 385ppm now, an increase of 35%, and is now higher than it has been at any point in the past 400,000 years) is much greater than anything seen in recent time and this is shown on the latest charts. I have shown you these charts. You have refuted them, claiming the data is obviously wrong, when the data sets and data trends are not incorrect and are given in the footnotes. These charts do not show that the same thing is happening as it did in the past, if you could show me the charts you are viewing that state this? I have linked all the charts I used to gather my analysis, but these links seem lacking in yours.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. We don’t really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be younger older than the gas bubbles it encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback”, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
So, no ones disputing CO2 doesnt cause a rise in temps, actually Im right, as this is from your link, heat first then CO2, now, if we go back to earlier links both of us provided as to the raising temps and the raising CO2 levels, its a picture perfect scenario of whats occured in the past.
Theres no stopping it.
Having said that, prolonging an event that lasts 5000 years is whats being asked here, should we continue or not?
Now, as anything decomposes, what happens? The things that are burnt have already released the carbon, so they wont be here to extend the 5000 years, its not as if more is being created from nowheres, we have what we have, and thus the cycles that we see,
So, accelerating something is a possibility, but again, temps need to rise for 200 to 800 years for this to occur, and my mention of asteroids etc is pertinent in these ways.
There has been variations in this cycle, and Im sure its volcanic as well as asteroid etc contributions in at least some of the time extentions of previous occurances.
To have a massive die off, with total loss of greenery, the die off emmiting its own CO2 as it decomposes, the greenery dead not taking it up the CO2 escalation, plus the massive amount of heat released all at once in the atmosphere, Im sure these arent things to easily to toss aside, but it is, as it doesnt fit the picture were being painted.

Im learning alot here, and havnt taken camp on either side, and sorry if my "arguing" with you is a problem, but Im learning from you as well, so for me, its all good.
These questions arent sprung from some anti group, but most are my thoughts as they come, without any influences either way.
So, we know were heading into a 5000 year period of this, and were to be extremely concerned with extending its longevity?
Id hope within 5000 years, we will have a different power usage model, friendlier to our planet. If the temps continue to rise, CO2 is sure to follow, as much is trapped within the ice, as it melts, and the oceans as well.
Can you, or do you have links showing that our current climate scenario is off the cyclic norm? As far as time goes, and any that shows amounts of temps vs CO2 concentrations, which I believe are watered down from my earlier posts, and tried to show that, and that CO2 levels then were actually higher than what we have found as proofs.
The carbon dating thing is only relevent as to how accurate it actually is, and my links did show alot of innacurate readings, especailly regarding things taken from volcanic activities, so I put 2 and 2 together.
If the timings off on carbon dating, and also smaller lengths of time as to accuracy, it all plays a role here, as to we only have 50 years, or we have 5000 years, again my point.
Its putting alot of faith in things not finely tuned.
Like selling artifacts to experts for millions of dollars, only to find out thru other means, that these artfacts were fakes, even tho carbon dating said otherwise.
Its hard enough to not trust such things, and not for lack of understanding or trying to, but then to have this all behind doors, with other "experts" crying foul, a tough lump to swallow
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0

(to be honest the post was very long, if you wish to read it it's above this one, and with my post being nearly as long it seemed like a wast of space for me to repeat the post above this.)

Point by point...

Do you have any evidence that ice volume lags temperature be 10,000 years is the case?

The first link states - 'On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming).' So this issue you raise, by your own evidence, is null and void with regards to global warming

We have reversed the CO2 lagging behind temperature by releasing masses Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere from fossil fuels.

The final paragraph of your second link - 'So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming.' That is to say that the lag is of no use in debates on global warming, such as this one. Talking about the pattern of glaciations, it's a fine thing to discuss, but at this point in time it holds no relevance.

You're correct on geological timescales, even I said that, but not historically, historically CO2 has led temperature. The second link you gave me has been updated to give rise to the first link.

We should not continue the way we are. The damage we've done is all ready too much for my liking.

Things that are burnt have indeed released their CO2, but our burning of fossil fuels will continue until the reserves run out, and deforestation is also likely to continue so more will and is still being created from 'nowhere'

Asteroids events have led to extensions of previous glacials/interglacials? In what way?

I never said that the planet would die, animals will adapt and survive.

The 'arguing' is not an issue at all, my only issue is your refusal to accept perfectly reasonable data.

We do not know that we are heading into a 5000 year period of this.

I find it hard to believe that human civilisation will exist in the same or a more advanced manner in 5000 years. The main issue is not CO2 in the ice sheets, but rather methane stored in now melting permafrost. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 but CO2 has been numerous in our purposeful releases, however the amount to be released from methane pockets is huge. With the release of this Methane it would send us into feedback loops, releasing more CO2 and more Methane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png – Do you see the ups and downs, then the final up, to modern times, but recently, looking at the Vostok and EPICA curves, temperature has done what I'd described as 'tarding out (up down up down where the heck am I going). Perhaps the medieval warm period was the peak, and the mini-ice age was the start of the downward decent into reglaciation ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png ) This may mean we have reversed the downwards trend by industrialisation. We'd probably be getting colder rather than if this was a natural pattern, but as it isn't we are getting warmer. The only way to prove this however, would be to find a parallel universe were we didn't exist. That could be tricky. Even then I'm sure that those from the sceptics side of the debate would find a way to interpret it as incorrect.

I've looked for the links regarding Radiocarbon dating inaccuracies due to volcanic activity but failed to find them. If you could produce these links it may help this cause.


Could you show me a case where artefacts have been sold for large amounts of money that have turned out to be fakes despite the use of Carbon dating?

Well it would seem that you do not wish too understand, by throwing out legitimate data when shown it, The reason it's 'behind closed doors', is that early on sceptics employed very aggressive tactics, and now scientists feel they are just making spurious claims for data to waste their time.
 

hundredislandsboy

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2009
2,503
0
20,860
38


I think your post title is a little misleading and is a hoax in itself. What was proven and where is the proof? Okay, some people acted unethically but did that prove anything other than they acted like asses? As far as I'm concerned the "myth is true" about global warming and 2012 The Movie and The Mayans are all correct, LOL!
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
The whole process of Carbon dating assumes that there has been a constant rate of
carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This has been proven to be true over a period of thousands
of years by comparing the results of carbon dating of Sequoia trees that can be dated by
counting the rings. While the amount of Carbon-14 stayed constant for years, today it
has changed, due mostly to the effects of nuclear testing. This means that humans for
example do not have the same amount of C-14 as we once did. To compensate
researchers use the pre 1950 level of C-14 to calibrate their measurements (Michels 150).
http://math.dartmouth.edu/~m5w08/pastpapers/pastpap4.pdf
So, Im right.I thought thered be effects.
What I wonder also is, how can they assume what any extinct animals carbon rate is? To me, this amounts to a gray area, and effects precision.


A number of theories have developed to explain the extinction of these mega beasts, these include:

•Climatic change. Possibly the change in temperature brought about a change in environmental conditions so quickly that these mega beasts couldn't adapt. For example a change in the type of vegetation? However the counter argument to this is the development of pygmy species.
•Competition from Man. With the arrival of humans, mega beasts faced increased competition for space and over hunting.
•Hyper disease Hypothesis
The reason for the extinction of the mammoth and other mega beasts such as Sabre Toothed cats, Woolly Rhino and Giant Ground Sloth all around the same time has yet to be discovered, especially when populations of Mammoth, for example those on Wrangle Island, a 2000 square miles land mass in the Chukchi Sea off north eastern Siberia, existed until 4,000 years ago.



Read more at Suite101: The Mammoth, A Brief History: From Giant Steppe to Pgymy Mammoth http://paleontology.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_mammoth_a_brief_history#ixzz0b07rNwR6
So, if climactic change is a consideration for the exteinction of the mamoths, and it was 4000 years ago, not 200000 or whatever, what and how did whatever happen? Surely we could "see" this easily, such a short time ago, we had records, buildings, pyramids etc by then.
Looking into this is an adventure, and it appears there holes all over the place, which to me is cause for relief.
What I find interesting is, its excepted that the Berring landbridge existed, which is alot of water, which again means major melting already happening, and maintained today, as sea levels are much higher today than then, and much more than the predictions of our climatologists.


Because of the somewhat short half-life of 14C, radiocarbon dating is not applicable to samples with ages greater than about 50,000 years, because the remaining concentration would be too small for accurate measurement.
http://www.si.edu/mci/english/learn_more/taking_care/dating.html

Now, dating things back millions and billions of years, unless somehow artificially preserved, and whatever effects it may have seems to fall towards inaccuracies the greater the length of time.
Just like the piece of rice and the checker board, where you double the rice on each square, so too does carbon dating become more smaller, in reverse, as each 5+ thousand years diminishes in half, and as I said earleir, we have to know the ratios from the beginning on organic materials, and how do we do that on extinct animals?


So, what we do know is, water levels have risen dramatically, something caused the extinction of the mamoths within recorded history, carbon dating in organics is a fuzzy science going back too far in time, CO2 consists of .4 of 1% of the entire atmosphere, its risen by 35%, its 5% now compared to lifes explosion at the earliest, when it was 7000 ppm compared to todays 350 ppm, and this number has fluctuated dramatically thuout history.
So, having 20 times the amount back then made for a good life for life at that time, which was mainly seen in the oceans at first, later on land.
CO2 is a primary element for life itself, and having huge amounts shows life proliferating from past records.
Still not sold on this theory, and since most ice is melted, the seas risen, temps already raised, not sure of its impact at all
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


(once again two large posts would make a huge post so it shall be compacteded ;) )

Point by point....

No you are not right, you claimed that radiocarbon dating would be effected by pressures and temperatures, and on that matter you were and still are incorrect. You never talked about the effect of human nuclear experiments and testing until now, and I certainly never said that we haven't effected the Carbon-14 make up of the atmosphere.

We do indeed have records of places that were inhabited by civilisations, such as Egypt, the Greek Islands, the Roman Empire and to a lesser extent the ranges of the Aztecs and the Mayans. However, Siberia wasn't populated in the manner that the Mediterranean, Western Europe or South and Central America was, with their infrastructures and evidence for populous cities. So these areas inhabited by Mammoths such as Siberia and Canada/Northern USA had no such civilisations and as such no such records of events. The last remnants survive until 4000 years ago, but on a remote island not only some 100 miles off the coast of mainland Russia, but also on the Northern side of the Easternmost part of Russia. Populations there were sparse and nowhere near as built up as in Europe and South/Central America, and I hardly feel that their main goal was creating a record but rather surviving in an incredibly unforgiving environment.

Climatologists have no need to predict the present, because the present is already here. As I said earlier the 'major melting' has happened, with the last glacial maximum being 20,000 years ago, if anything I feel that we'd be cooling without human interference.

I never said that Carbon dating could date back millions of years, croc did, I merely agreed without really taking it in. Since then I have said that nobody uses carbon dating on samples that are millions of years old. From three posts ago - 'Radiocarbon dating has no use for the study of events that occurred millions of years ago.' I'd hoped you accepted that, but it seems you haven't.

We don't use carbon dating on long extinct animals. For animals that have become extinct recently, up to about 50,000 years or so ago, as in your link, it's used. We can assume that the Earths bombardment of cosmic rays has been constant for tens of thousands if not millions or billions of years which is how we know that the Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has been the same for millennia.

The extinction of Mammoths is not within recorded history. Recorded history is by definitions recorded. We have not got records regarding the extinction of Mammoths and so it does not fall within the category of recorded history.

CO2 has fluctuated throughout Earths history, but in recent history the rates have had a maximum at or just over 300ppm. We are now at 385 ppm.

Indeed having 20 times the amount of CO2 made for a good life back then. But such a high concentration would be catastrophic now that plants and animals are adapted to these current conditions.

Most of the ice has not melted. Vast quantities remain on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, some 2.85 million cubic kilometres on Greenland and some 30 million cubic kilometres on Antarctic ice sheets. If all the ice melted from Greenland, which some believe is possible from feedback loops, sea levels would rise by 7.2m. If all the ice melted from the Antarctic , which is highly unlikely but it's likely we'd loose at least some of it due to global warming, then the sea levels would rise by 61.1m. As such the seas could go a lot higher (possibly more than 70 metres if you include other ice sheets, glaciers etc.) and realistically we could still end up with an 7 metre rise. Temperatures could go a lot higher, and an example would be your mentioning of of the huge CO2 levels from Earths history, as these levels would correlate to much higher temperatures.

On a side note we need not worry about Arctic Sea ice coverage if we merely talk about ice itself melting (it displaces it own wait in water so displaces the amount of water it would create) unless we care about polar bears and other Arctic creatures that rely on the ice for survival. But being white the albedo of ice is far greater than any other natural formation, and much more reflective than the darker sea they'd expose, heating the Arctic, and the planet, dramatically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS