New Climate Theory Says End Of World Soon

[exchemist]

On the consumption side of things, one would think people would realize that once you have clean water, adequate food, shelter, clothing, family and friends, and a purpose in life, everything else is just stuff.

Noble sentiments, certainly.

 

But how many vehicles do you run? And do you have air conditioning? 

[Maine farmer]

it isn't a matter of nobility but of practicality.  As I age I find I want less stuff.

 

I have a compact diesel car I bought new in 2001 for personal use, a diesel pickup truck for hauling / towing up to 20,000 lbs, and two diesel trucks for hauling crops / manure / fertilizer up to 46,000 lbs. All trucks bought used.

[billvon]

I didn't say human nature was unchangeable, merely that it is extremely difficult.  We humans, for the most part, like to consume, we like pleasure, and we like for things to be easy.  Education alone won't yield the desired results very quickly. 

While I agree, note that we no longer ride horses.  Back in the 1850's it would have been unthinkable that we would give up horses, just as now it is unthinkable that we would give up gas cars.  But technology moves on, and as long as we provide the education and funding to ensure that our technology helps us solve our most pressing problems, we are moving in the right direction.

[Maine farmer]

While I agree, note that we no longer ride horses.  Back in the 1850's it would have been unthinkable that we would give up horses, just as now it is unthinkable that we would give up gas cars.  But technology moves on, and as long as we provide the education and funding to ensure that our technology helps us solve our most pressing problems, we are moving in the right direction.

On that note, do you think virtual reality might have the ability to save the Earth from humans?  Could virtual reality allow us to indulge in our hunger for things without actually  using up all of the resources of the planet?

[fahrquad]

If you will go back into the climate records you will find that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels were a few thousand times higher than they are now during the middle of some of the biggest Ice Ages this planet has seen.  Believe it or not, we are currently in the middle of an Ice Age.

 

 

http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

[fahrquad]

Here is another chart that is easier to follow.

 

[fahrquad]

Or a clearer chart with temperature and CO2 scales.

 

[fahrquad]

I don't deny that human use of hydrocarbons has been releasing carbon that has been sequestered for millions or billions of years.  I do deny that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing climate change.    Scientists have paid far too much attention to the atmosphere while ignoring the engine that drives the climate on Earth.  I am talking about the ocean.  Don't forget that water holds far more heat than air does.  The thermohaline circulation pattern and its periodic fluctuations are poorly understood at best.  By the way, get ready for a Heaping Helping of Global Warming this coming winter (as in it will be harsh).  This past winter was very mild, but it was the strongest El Nino pattern in recorded history.  The cycle is ending and we will be entering into a La Nina pattern for next winter.  The El Nino/La Nina cycle is influenced by equatorial circulation and how far north the Humboldt current from Antarctica goes north.

Edited June 6, 2016 by fahrquad

[fahrquad]

Burn more fossil fuels to prevent more glaciation!!!

 

In the 1970s many paleoclimatologists were concerned with the possibility of global cooling, and suggested that the next glacial could be rapidly approaching. The previous interglacial periods seemed to have lasted about 10,000 years each;^[26][27] a report in 1972 assuming that the present interglacial period would be equally long concluded, "it is likely that the present-day warm epoch will terminate relatively soon if man does not intervene."^[28] Since then, our understanding of the climate system has improved. It is known that not all interglacial periods are of the same length and that solar heating varies in a non-linear fashion forced by the Milankovitch orbital cycles (see Causes section above). At the same time, it is also known that greenhouse gases are increasing in concentration with each passing year. Based on the variations in solar heating and on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, some calculations of future temperatures have been made. According to these estimates, the interglacial period Earth is in now may persist for another 50,000 years if CO2 levels increase to 750 parts per million (ppm)^[29] while the recent atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 407 ppm by volume.^[30] If CO2 drops instead to 210 ppm, then the next glacial period may only be 15,000 years away.^[29]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Edited June 6, 2016 by fahrquad

[fahrquad]

If you will go back into the climate records you will find that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels were a few thousand times higher than they are now during the middle of some of the biggest Ice Ages this planet has seen.  Believe it or not, we are currently in the middle of an Ice Age.

 

I should clarify that we are in an "inter-glacial period" of the current ice age, as in a warm period between glaciations.

[fahrquad]

Two of the biggest glaciations in Earth history were during the Cryogenian Period from 720-635 million years ago.  This period was referred to as "Snowball Earth".  Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels then were 1300 ppm which is about 3.5 times higher than present.

 

(Artist's rendering, since we didn't have a space program 720 MYA)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenian

Edited June 6, 2016 by fahrquad

[exchemist]

If you will go back into the climate records you will find that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels were a few thousand times higher than they are now during the middle of some of the biggest Ice Ages this planet has seen.  Believe it or not, we are currently in the middle of an Ice Age.

 

 

http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

 

A few thousand times higher????

 

You mean 20 times, I think. And for that you have to go back to the Cambrian. 

 

Of course, back in the Cambrian, there were not billions of people living in low-lying coastal areas that might get flooded by a change in sea-level. 

[Essay]

I don't deny that human use of hydrocarbons has been releasing carbon that has been sequestered for millions or billions of years.  I do deny that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing climate change.    Scientists have paid far too much attention to the atmosphere while ignoring the engine that drives the climate on Earth.  I am talking about the ocean.  Don't forget that water holds far more heat than air does.  The thermohaline circulation pattern and its periodic fluctuations are poorly understood at best.  By the way, get ready for a Heaping Helping of Global Warming this coming winter (as in it will be harsh).  This past winter was very mild, but it was the strongest El Nino pattern in recorded history.  The cycle is ending and we will be entering into a La Nina pattern for next winter.  The El Nino/La Nina cycle is influenced by equatorial circulation and how far north the Humboldt current from Antarctica goes north.

 

Your information isn’t wrong, but you seem to have drawn some errant conclusions from it, perhaps because your information isn’t more complete.  Even those “many paleoclimatologists” (of those few who would qualify, back in the 1970s) now concur that since “man does …intervene” there is no danger of returning to a glacial phase, and that the current warming will likely “persist for another 50,000 years.”  That is because the effect of “the Milankovitch orbital cycles” you mentioned will be far outweighed by the effect of high CO2 levels.

 

Look at where we are now (at 0 years along the x axis) in this combined phase of the Milankovitch orbital cycles showing solar insolation at 65 degrees N. latitude, which is most strongly linked with glacial advance/retreat cycles.

We should have been cooling for the past 10,000 or 11,000 years, from where "Holocene" is marked, but now we are not expecting any new cooling influence from the Milankovitch orbital cycles.  You can see we are now in what should be the coldest part of the cycle.  Its influence only warms up from here, for the next 50,000 years.

===

 

The many more paleoclimatologists of today, along with the few paleoclimatologists that existed in the 1970s, now understand why making direct comparisons of paleo-CO2 levels with paleo-temperature levels (or with today’s temperature levels) would be misguided, mainly because so many conditions were so very different back hundreds of millions of years ago--especially the positions of the continents and ocean currents.   Your conclusion, to “deny that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing climate change,” is misguided because it is too oversimplified, since you are considering paleo climates from when the positions of the continents, as well as global ocean currents, were very different. 

 

Since you understand the importance of the oceans, that big difference should be apparent; and how comparing climates from the more recent few million to few tens-of-millions of years would be more relevant.  The Milankovitch orbital cycles have been operating for hundreds of millions of years, but it has only been during the past few million years that greenhouse gas levels were low enough for the Milankovitch orbital cycles to become a significant player in the climate balance. 

 

Now, that is no longer true.  Without lower greenhouse gas levels, the influence of Milankovitch orbital cycles will not be enough to initiate a new “glacial” phase, nor even enough to maintain the polar ice caps, and the “thermohaline circulation pattern and its periodic fluctuations” will be radically disrupted.

 

“Without a reduction in emissions, by the end of this century atmospheric carbon dioxide is projected to increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years.”

 

Those are conditions unknown to the food webs of our primate ancestors.  How do you think we will do?  :shocked:

~

[billvon]

If you will go back into the climate records you will find that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels were a few thousand times higher than they are now during the middle of some of the biggest Ice Ages this planet has seen. 

No, that's off by a few orders of magnitude.

Two of the biggest glaciations in Earth history were during the Cryogenian Period from 720-635 million years ago.  This period was referred to as

Snowball Earth".  Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels then were 1300 ppm which is about 3.5 times higher than present.

 

Correct.  That's why we came out of that ice age.  Ice reflects light, and thus an ice covered planet is very cold and stable since most of the energy is reflected into space.  It took that tremendously high CO2 level to generate enough of a greenhouse effect to cause the oceans to start melting.  Once that started, and the darker water was exposed, melting occurred very rapidly.

 

Something similar is happening today.  We are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.  This is increasing warming.  The Northern ice cap is melting, exposing more dark water.  This amplifies the warming effects of the CO2.

 

I don't deny that human use of hydrocarbons has been releasing carbon that has been sequestered for millions or billions of years. I do deny that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing climate change.

 

So you are denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?  Simple experiments in a high school lab can prove to you that it is in fact a greenhouse gas.

 

Scientists have paid far too much attention to the atmosphere while ignoring the engine that drives the climate on Earth. I am talking about the ocean.

 

The ocean is not a source of heat.  The ocean merely stores heat.  99.9% of our heat comes from the sun, and thus changes we make to our atmosphere (which trap more or less heat) cause changes in climate.  We are doing that now by increasing the concentration of AGW gases.

 

Also, the idea that "scientists have ignored the ocean" is laughable.  It is one of the most important moderators of climate change for several reasons:

 

-It can absorb _some_ excess CO2

-As ice melts, the ocean absorbs more heat

-Evaporation from the ocean drives cloud formation which changes albedo and greenhouse gas concentrations

 

Do a search for papers on the effects of the ocean on AGW and you'll find hundreds.

Edited June 6, 2016 by billvon

[jackk]

Ozone layer depletion enhancement in the amount of UVB that reaches to the Earth’s surface. Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that the skin cancer,various types of skin diseases also caused by this.

 
 
[sPAMlink removed]

[exchemist]

 

Ozone layer depletion enhancement in the amount of UVB that reaches to the Earth’s surface. Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that the skin cancer,various types of skin diseases also caused by this.

 

 

[sPAMlink removed]

 

This has nothing whatever to do with climate change however, as has been discussed on another thread recently.

[fahrquad]

A few thousand times higher????

 

You mean 20 times, I think. And for that you have to go back to the Cambrian. 

 

Of course, back in the Cambrian, there were not billions of people living in low-lying coastal areas that might get flooded by a change in sea-level. 

7000 ppm/400 ppm comes to 17.5 times.  OK, I am guilty of exaggerating a little, but so are the Global Climate Change folks