A 10 Year Cooling Trend Predicted?

[billvon 2,400]

>This is assuming we know when the trend will stop and cooling will begin.

I made no assumptions about when it will stop, although I suspect it will be strongly correlated to changes in CO2 and methane concentrations. I said that it IS happening in decades instead of thousands of years, and that's supported by climactic data from 1800 to present.

> Is there information available as to how quick the temps rose in the last
>global warming? Then we can compare what is happening now.

Sure. There are four big "warming" episodes seen in the EPICA and Vostok ice core datasets. They are, roughly:

140,000 years ago - 12C over 12,000 years, or .1C/century
255,000 years ago - 8C over 10,000 years, or .08C/century
340,000 years ago - 9C over 10,000 years, or .09C/century
435,000 years ago - 10C over 20,000 years, or .05C/century

We are currently warming at .75C/century. In other words, roughly ten times faster than previous warming cycles.

[thirdworld19 0]

> How many "ice ages" have there been during the existence of the earth?

Four major ones.

>...each of which was followed by a warm period. "Ages" and "periods" are not measured in days, weeks, months or years. Rather, they are measured in thousands of years.

Agreed. This one is happening in decades instead of thousands of years due to our increased CO2 emissions.

Quote

>This is assuming we know when the trend will stop and cooling will begin.

I made no assumptions about when it will stop, although I suspect it will be strongly correlated to changes in CO2 and methane concentrations. I said that it IS happening in decades instead of thousands of years, and that's supported by climactic data from 1800 to present.

> Is there information available as to how quick the temps rose in the last global warming? Then we can compare what is happening now.

Sure. There are four big "warming" episodes seen in the EPICA and Vostok ice core datasets. They are, roughly:

140,000 years ago - 12C over 12,000 years, or .1C/century
255,000 years ago - 8C over 10,000 years, or .08C/century
340,000 years ago - 9C over 10,000 years, or .09C/century
435,000 years ago - 10C over 20,000 years, or .05C/century

We are currently warming at .75C/century. In other words, roughly ten times faster than previous warming cycles.

It seems that you are trying to evaluate data that is incomplete because the period for which you need to observe has not elapsed. Looking at the data you presented, there are 100-200 centuries of data for each warming period from which to base a conclusion. It appears that you are using 2 centuries to come to a similar conclusion. Seems like quite a leap.

If you were to have taken certain decade periods (not centuries) during any of the ice ages, some of those decades would have shown leaps in decline of temperature. Whereas, other decades may not have shown any, very little, or even increases.

[billvon 2,400]

>It seems that you are trying to evaluate data that is incomplete
>because the period for which you need to observe has not elapsed.

Of course. It is just beginning. We could wait for 20,000 years to see if the climate change we caused is going to be similar to (or faster than) other warming cycles, and at that point make some concrete conclusions. That way we'd have the same data set (a more thorough one, actually) as the temperatures represented by the ice core proxies.

However, since most of us are concerned with what the world will be like for our children and their children, we forecast what will happen based on what has already happened, and on models that have been proven by actual validation against climate changes.

>It appears that you are using 2 centuries to come to a similar
>conclusion. Seems like quite a leap.

Yes. It's akin to a doctor using 2 weeks of tests to diagnose lung cancer, instead of waiting for three years until the patient dies from the disease - at which point he will have a much, much better idea of the progress of the disease. Still, we see some value in predicting the course of the disease in a smaller timeframe.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>It seems that you are trying to evaluate data that is incomplete
>because the period for which you need to observe has not elapsed.

Of course. It is just beginning. We could wait for 20,000 years to see if the climate change we caused is going to be similar to (or faster than) other warming cycles, and at that point make some concrete conclusions. That way we'd have the same data set (a more thorough one, actually) as the temperatures represented by the ice core proxies.

However, since most of us are concerned with what the world will be like for our children and their children, we forecast what will happen based on what has already happened, and on models that have been proven by actual validation against climate changes.

>It appears that you are using 2 centuries to come to a similar
>conclusion. Seems like quite a leap.

Yes. It's akin to a doctor using 2 weeks of tests to diagnose lung cancer, instead of waiting for three years until the patient dies from the disease - at which point he will have a much, much better idea of the progress of the disease. Still, we see some value in predicting the course of the disease in a smaller timeframe.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

>It seems that you are trying to evaluate data that is incomplete because the period for which you need to observe has not elapsed.

Of course. It is just beginning. We could wait for 20,000 years to see if the climate change we caused is going to be similar to (or faster than) other warming cycles, and at that point make some concrete conclusions. That way we'd have the same data set (a more thorough one, actually) as the temperatures represented by the ice core proxies.

However, since most of us are concerned with what the world will be like for our children and their children, we forecast what will happen based on what has already happened, and on models that have been proven by actual validation against climate changes.

>It appears that you are using 2 centuries to come to a similar conclusion. Seems like quite a leap.

Yes. It's akin to a doctor using 2 weeks of tests to diagnose lung cancer, instead of waiting for three years until the patient dies from the disease - at which point he will have a much, much better idea of the progress of the disease. Still, we see some value in predicting the course of the disease in a smaller timeframe.

So, if it's just beginning, what makes you think that its happening in decades versus thousands of years - 2 data points? And to say that we've caused this warming trend (if that's what we're in) is questionable at best. It's politically driven. Look at historical data over the past 1/2 million years - it's been happening longer than we've been around. Who would've caused the previous warming trends? Perhaps they just happen as part of the Earth's cyclical nature. Trying to stop this is akin to stopping or slowing the tides.

[billvon 2,400]

>So, if it's just beginning, what makes you think that its happening in
>decades versus thousands of years - 2 data points?

200 years of data.

>And to say that we've caused this warming trend (if that's what we're in)
>is questionable at best.

CO2 is increasing - proven via experiment.
We are causing the increase in CO2 - proven via simple mathematical analysis.
CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas - proven by experiment.
CO2 causes warming of the planet - demonstrated by historical record.

>Who would've caused the previous warming trends?

Milankovitch cycles. Massive volcanic activity. More often, recovery from an ice age.

>Trying to stop this is akin to stopping or slowing the tides.

Right. You can't stop the tides, which rise a few feet at a time. But you can stop the dam from breaking, which gives you 30 feet of water in a few minutes. All we can do is not force the climate to change faster than it otherwise would.

[thirdworld19 0]

>So, if it's just beginning, what makes you think that its happening in decades versus thousands of years - 2 data points?

200 years of data.

>>>Which works out to 2 data points based on the data you supplied earlier. Not near enough to make a conclusion such as yours.

>And to say that we've caused this warming trend (if that's what we're in) is questionable at best.

CO2 is increasing - proven via experiment.
We are causing the increase in CO2 - proven via simple mathematical analysis.
CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas - proven by experiment.
CO2 causes warming of the planet - demonstrated by historical record.


>>>Please explain this simple mathematical analysis that proves we are causing the increase in CO2. Are you aware that CO2 was rising before the industrial revolution - and has been for the past 8,000-10,000 years? What caused that? Please also explain how CO2 causes the warming of the planet more so than the sun (look up sun-spot data). And if there is such a strong correlation between CO2 and global warming, why has the temp decreased over the past 8 years?

>Who would've caused the previous warming trends?

Milankovitch cycles. Massive volcanic activity. More often, recovery from an ice age.

>>>And the little ice age that occured from the 16th to the 19th century won't have anything to do with the current warming?

>Trying to stop this is akin to stopping or slowing the tides.

Right. You can't stop the tides, which rise a few feet at a time. But you can stop the dam from breaking, which gives you 30 feet of water in a few minutes. All we can do is not force the climate to change faster than it otherwise would.

>>>And relating the warming to a dam breaking is exactly what those behind the scare want everyone to believe. You seem smarter than to play into the emotional and fear issues created by this (discussing the future of our children). As soon as you state this, the argument goes from rational to emotional. Look at the science. Try the following websites:

Friendsofscience.org
CO2Science.org
JunkScience.com

[Royd 0]

Right. You can't stop the tides, which rise a few feet at a time. But you can stop the dam from breaking, which gives you 30 feet of water in a few minutes. All we can do is not force the climate to change faster than it otherwise would.

Quote

>>>And relating the warming to a dam breaking is exactly what those behind the scare want everyone to believe. You seem smarter than to play into the emotional and fear issues created by this (discussing the future of our children). As soon as you state this, the argument goes from rational to emotional. Look at the science. Try the following websites:

In the Global Warming Religion, this is the altar call at the end of the sermon. Time to abandon all reasons and excuses, and get right with Al Gore. Tomorrow you'll either be dying of thirst, flood or famine.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

In the Global Warming Religion, this is the altar call at the end of the sermon. Time to abandon all reasons and excuses, and get right with Al Gore. Tomorrow you'll either be dying of thirst, flood or famine.

There is, of course, far more objective, testable evidence to suggest that GW is occurring and humans are at least partly responsible, than there is of ANY supernatural god or gods.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

In the Global Warming Religion, this is the altar call at the end of the sermon. Time to abandon all reasons and excuses, and get right with Al Gore. Tomorrow you'll either be dying of thirst, flood or famine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

There is, of course, far more objective, testable evidence to suggest that GW is occurring and humans are at least partly responsible, than there is of ANY supernatural god or gods.

But to claim that it's the equivalent of living 1 mile downstream of a crumbling dam is nonsensical, at best.
I'll put it right up there with Pharoah's army being swallowed up in the Red Sea, just for you unbelievers.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>So, if it's just beginning, what makes you think that its happening in
>decades versus thousands of years - 2 data points?

200 years of data.

>And to say that we've caused this warming trend (if that's what we're in)
>is questionable at best.

CO2 is increasing - proven via experiment.

Quote

Yes, and experiment and research has also shown levels of CO2 much higher in the past before man was even around

We are causing the increase in CO2 - proven via simple mathematical analysis.

Quote

Sure, one more time to try and simplify info to make a point. Please consider the followinghttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas - proven by experiment.
CO2 causes warming of the planet - demonstrated by historical record.

Quote

And again, not all agree to the level the alarmists statehttp://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part-3/

>Who would've caused the previous warming trends?

Quote

And of course there is the debate about temp CO2 timing.http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Milankovitch cycles. Massive volcanic activity. More often, recovery from an ice age.

>Trying to stop this is akin to stopping or slowing the tides.

Right. You can't stop the tides, which rise a few feet at a time. But you can stop the dam from breaking, which gives you 30 feet of water in a few minutes. All we can do is not force the climate to change faster than it otherwise would.

Now, one more time I will say I am still learning. My beef is with those that "know" they are right.

Too much still unknown to be that arrogant I think

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

In the Global Warming Religion, this is the altar call at the end of the sermon. Time to abandon all reasons and excuses, and get right with Al Gore. Tomorrow you'll either be dying of thirst, flood or famine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

There is, of course, far more objective, testable evidence to suggest that GW is occurring and humans are at least partly responsible, than there is of ANY supernatural god or gods.

But to claim that it's the equivalent of living 1 mile downstream of a crumbling dam is nonsensical, at best.
I'll put it right up there with Pharoah's army being swallowed up in the Red Sea, just for you unbelievers.

The planet Earth does not care if dams crumble and humans make the place less tolerable for themselves and a few other species.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The planet Earth does not care if dams crumble and humans make the place less tolerable for themselves and a few other species.

Exactly, and who are we to think that if we do or don't do one thing, we are going to turn the tide of natural consequences?
It only takes one volacano one day to spew more crap into the air than we humans could in a hundred years.
Maybe feeling good about doing our part is just the penance for being born human.
That old guilt factor at work.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

The planet Earth does not care if dams crumble and humans make the place less tolerable for themselves and a few other species.

Exactly, and who are we to think that if we do or don't do one thing, we are going to turn the tide of natural consequences?
It only takes one volacano one day to spew more crap into the air than we humans could in a hundred years.
Maybe feeling good about doing our part is just the penance for being born human.
That old guilt factor at work.

If you see an accident on the road ahead, do you deliberately smash into it on the grounds that death and injury have already occurred so a little more won't matter?

Do volcanic eruptions (to which the planet has apparently equilibrated over the long term) somehow make it OK for us to add an EXTRA 30 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year at the same time as destroying the rain forests?

The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 corresponds remarkably well to human CO2 output.


I fail to see your point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It only takes one volacano one day to spew more crap into the air than we humans could in a hundred years.

You are only off by four orders of magnitude.

Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.

Source

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Royd 0]

Quote

Do volcanic eruptions (to which the planet has apparently equilibrated over the long term) somehow make it OK for us to add an EXTRA 30 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year at the same time as destroying the rain forests?

The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 corresponds remarkably well to human CO2 output.


I fail to see your point.

So you are going to argue that the Earth, as if it is a thinking entity, has the ability to adjust itself to any number of volcanoes, yet it can't do the same to any number of human beings?

How is it that those who seriously believe in evolution, and that everything adjusts and accomodates itself to the surrounding environment, suddenly want to live in a state of staticism, as if we are the final chapter in the book?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Do volcanic eruptions (to which the planet has apparently equilibrated over the long term) somehow make it OK for us to add an EXTRA 30 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year at the same time as destroying the rain forests?

The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 corresponds remarkably well to human CO2 output.


I fail to see your point.

So you are going to argue that the Earth, as if it is a thinking entity, has the ability to adjust itself to any number of volcanoes, yet it can't do the same to any number of human beings?

How is it that those who seriously believe in evolution, and that everything adjusts and accomodates itself to the surrounding environment, suddenly want to live in a state of staticism, as if we are the final chapter in the book?

Your total lack of comprehension is just astounding.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Your total lack of comprehension is just astounding.

Everybody's got to be good at something.

BTW, I think that is a legitimate question. Why are we so desparately trying to hang on to status quo, if we so vehemently believe in the evolutionary process?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Your total lack of comprehension is just astounding.

Everybody's got to be good at something.

BTW, I think that is a legitimate question. Why are we so desparately trying to hang on to status quo, if we so vehemently believe in the evolutionary process?

Well, consider the timescale of evolutionary processes for "higher" animals, and compare it with the rate of change of CO2 content in the atmosphere.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

BTW, I think that is a legitimate question. Why are we so desparately trying to hang on to status quo, if we so vehemently believe in the evolutionary process?

I agree: that is a reasonable question, particularly given the amount of mis-information about evolution and about climate change that gets passed around … particularly on the internet (so, of course, take everything I ‘say’ with a metaphorical grain of salt).

The planet will survive. Even with global thermonuclear war, the planet is likely to survive. (That's why alliterative rhetoric like "planet in peril" is more about marketing than science or climate change.)

The crux is will it be a planet we ‘like’? I'm interested as to how will climate change affect balance of power & global patterns of conflict for resources?

Assuming we don’t have global thermonuclear war or massive asteroid hit, human evolution is likely to continue. It’s just a lot slower than anthropogenic climate change and even slower than some natural climate change.

VR/Marg

p.s. there are some who advocate trying to overcome the status quo, they're called transhumanists. To give you a political anchor, the President's Council on Bioethics is firmly opposed to transhumanism.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Royd 0]

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BTW, I think that is a legitimate question. Why are we so desparately trying to hang on to status quo, if we so vehemently believe in the evolutionary process?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

I agree: that is a reasonable question, particularly given the amount of mis-information about evolution and about climate change that gets passed around … particularly on the internet (so, of course, take everything I ‘say’ with a metaphorical grain of salt).

The planet will survive. Even with global thermonuclear war, the planet is likely to survive. (That's why alliterative rhetoric like "planet in peril" is more about marketing than science or climate change.)

The crux is will it be a planet we ‘like’? I'm interested as to how will climate change affect balance of power & global patterns of conflict for resources?

Assuming we don’t have global thermonuclear war or massive asteroid hit, human evolution is likely to continue. It’s just a lot slower than anthropogenic climate change and even slower than some natural climate change.

VR/Marg

p.s. there are some who advocate trying to overcome the status quo, they're called transhumanists. To give you a political anchor, the President's Council on Bioethics is firmly opposed to transhumanism.

I find this conflict ironic.

How many people on the face of the Earth do you think are even aware of this thing called global warming? They are just trying to get along day by day. They need fire to cook, they go get some dry branches and burn them.
As I said earlier, it appears to be a sort of penance for being who we are. Some kind of built in guilt for being an advanced society.

On the one hand, we fret about the overpopulation of the world, and on the other, wring our hands over 1/2 a million people being killed by natural disaster.
Personally, I believe the Earth could sustain quite a few more, but then, we'd all have to go around singing that John Lennon song.
Those who are actually worried about the overpopulation just don't want to be the ones to give up their spot at the table.
You said,"Will it be a planet we like."
I say, arguing from the point of absolute evolution, who are we to demand anything, one way or the other.
Maybe deep down inside, there's this little voice that says, "Yes, you are the stewards of this planet. Keep it, tend it and it will serve you well."
Evolution would not demand such a thing of us because, by the rules of evolution, the next model is superior to what's currently on the shelf.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How many people on the face of the Earth do you think are even aware of this thing called global warming? They are just trying to get along day by day. They need fire to cook, they go get some dry branches and burn them.

But, they are not putting new (i.e. carbon that has long been out of circulation within the surface -> atmosphere -> surface cycle) carbon into the atmosphere.

Quote

Evolution would not demand such a thing of us because, by the rules of evolution, the next model is superior to what's currently on the shelf.

You are apparently still failing to consider the relative time scales involved with human evolution versus anthropogenic global warming.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

I agree: that is a reasonable question, particularly given the amount of mis-information about evolution and about climate change that gets passed around … particularly on the internet (so, of course, take everything I ‘say’ with a metaphorical grain of salt).

Assuming we don’t have global thermonuclear war or massive asteroid hit, human evolution is likely to continue. It’s just a lot slower than anthropogenic climate change and even slower than some natural climate change.

I find it interesting that when the hype started, it was "global warming." And now it is "climate change." Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down. However, at the same time, CO2 has increased and human production has increased. So you’ve got “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to "climate change," it allows people to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down.

Would you care to share your source for that bit of disinformation?

Where ever you got that idea, it's wrong.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Royd 0]

Quote

But, they are not putting new (i.e. carbon that has long been out of circulation within the surface -> atmosphere -> surface cycle) carbon into the atmosphere.

So the person burning up scrub trees for cooking and heating is not contributing to global warming, but if I did the same thing here in the states I'm part of the problem. Once again, there's some kind of false guilt going on here.

Have you also considered that because of our industrialization in farming, and the resultant commerce, much of the world is able to live a much simpler lifestyle.

------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution would not demand such a thing of us because, by the rules of evolution, the next model is superior to what's currently on the shelf.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

You are apparently still failing to consider the relative time scales involved with human evolution versus anthropogenic global warming.

Nature has been settling its imbalance issues quite nicely for years, now.
If an area gets lots of rain for a few years and grass grows, the rabbits multiply. One of two things is going to happen. They will either eat themselves out of food and die off, or predators will increase and keep them in control. If the rain stops, the rabbits decrease, and eventually, so do the predators.
Why should we think that we are somehow exempt from this cycle? Unless, of course, we really are something special.