The coming Ice Age

[ZedMikey]

Another Straw man.....New report out that 10m years ago the Earth was warmer and Co2 levels were lower

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11200.

Proving what we already knew... atmospheric CO2 levels aren't the only forcing for global temperatures. Also, this isn't new data.

Here's a paper from last year that models and successfully simulates the late Miocene climate... warm temps, low CO2 levels, and all...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048873.shtml

 

[whatthe?]

Proving what we already knew... (Until science "proves" otherwise) Also, this isn't new data. (Yea, it's 10 million years old.)

Glad this thread is back. :haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

Glad this thread is back. :haha:

It's back? Really? I thought it was dead again already... Jay's post did nothing to bring this thread back for any serious discussion.

 

[whatthe?]

It's back. I didn't say it was serious. :kissmyass:

 

[RusM]

Wasnt there a recent study that showed the medieval optimim warm
Period and the little ice age were not solely experienced in te north Atlantic, but In the whole planet? This would be the death of anthropogenic warming for all but the most zealous....

 

[ZedMikey]

Wasnt there a recent study that showed the medieval optimim warm
Period and the little ice age were not solely experienced in te north Atlantic, but In the whole planet? This would be the death of anthropogenic warming for all but the most zealous....

Most reconstructions of global temperature data show a global (mostly northern hemisphere, from what the data suggests) "Medieval Warm Period."

The Medieval Optimum gave way to the "Little Ice Age," which in turn gave way to the much more pronounced warming we have observed in the last century.

This is not the death knell you seem to think it is, however. Because as I said just a handful of posts ago, CO2 is not the only forcing at work in the global climate, and scientists are well aware of that.

A small blurb from NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

 

[Jaydog]

Proving what we already knew... atmospheric CO2 levels aren't the only forcing for global temperatures. Also, this isn't new data.

Here's a paper from last year that models and successfully simulates the late Miocene climate... warm temps, low CO2 levels, and all...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048873.shtml

It is a new study that just came out, maybe you already knew, but what I read made it sound as though it was a new discovery.

Here is a link to one article, and at the bottom is a link to the paper, for some reason when I click on the link I made before it leads to Nature's front page :eeek:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/07/warmth_and_carbon_decoupled_miocene/

 

[ZedMikey]

It is a new study that just came out, maybe you already knew, but what I read made it sound as though it was a new discovery.

Here is a link to one article, and at the bottom is a link to the paper, for some reason when I click on the link I made before it leads to Nature's front page :eeek:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/07/warmth_and_carbon_decoupled_miocene/

And that's why we shouldn't trust the media to know a damn thing about science. Here's another paper, this one from 2007, that also talks about the decoupling of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the climate...

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/449.long

Consequently, the Miocene has been regarded as a geological period in which climate and the carbon cycle were essentially decoupled.

I think the authors of the recent paper are specifically talking about the decoupling of ocean surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels, not necessarily the global climate as whole... since that part was already known. The decoupling of ocean surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels would seem to be the influence of a pretty major forcing, since the oceans are a huge source/sink for atmospheric CO2. But at the same time, we know that temperature isn't the only factor involved in the amount of CO2 the oceans can sequester.

I'd like to read the entire Nature paper. Ah... found it through the UW library. I'll get back to this after I've had a chance to read the full text.

 

[ZedMikey]

A'ight... so here's the gist of the recent article in Nature (it's a short piece in the Letters section, if anyone cares). Skip to the end for the short version.

The new data they have presented is that North Pacific sea surface temperatures in the late Miocene were warmer than present, and when combined with previous data (they actually cite the paper I posted from the American Geophysical Union, among others that are older), it reinforces that the climate sensitivity to the CO2 forcing was less back then.

Their model also shows that the decoupling (this is a bit of a misleading term... it isn't truly decoupled, the effects are just dwarfed by other forcings) of atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures is a result of tectonic changes in the structures of the oceans leading to high atmospheric water vapor concentrations (a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2).

They go into some detail about how the tectonic changes affected oceanic thermoclines, how those thermoclines play into sea surface temperatures, and how the sea surface temperatures play into atmospheric CO2 levels.

In a nutshell... they presented data to show why the late Miocene global temps were high when the CO2 levels were low (increased atmospheric water vapor due to oceanic/tectonic changes)... and that data fits just fine with what climate science has been saying.

 

[ZedMikey]

It's back. I didn't say it was serious. :kissmyass:

Like I said... it's dead.

Come on, you guys don't have anything else? This is fun. I actually learn quite a bit doing the research you guys won't bother to... keep it up! :awesomework:

 

[whatthe?]

Like I said... it's dead.

Come on, you guys don't have anything else? This is fun. I actually learn quite a bit doing the research you guys won't bother to... keep it up! :awesomework:

I've never presented any studies that show man made global warming is false or true. My position on this issue has always been that it is too corrupted by money and politics. People who believe something and their living depends on it being true will never be unbiased, especially when it's based on politicians money. We're trusting the people who depend on man influenced global warming to be true to tell us if it's true or not. I know you trust and have faith that "scientists" to give us pure, unbiased results but their money depends on it being true. I trust and have faith that people want to be paid and keep their jobs. Therefore, live on man made global warming.:awesomework:

 

[CrustyJeep]

I've never presented any studies that show man made global warming is false or true. My position on this issue has always been that it is too corrupted by money and politics. People who believe something and their living depends on it being true will never be unbiased, especially when it's based on politicians money. We're trusting the people who depend on man influenced global warming to be true to tell us if it's true or not. I know you trust and have faith that "scientists" to give us pure, unbiased results but their money depends on it being true. I trust and have faith that people want to be paid and keep their jobs. Therefore, live on man made global warming.:awesomework:

And what is your unbiased opinion on the matter?

 

[LiftedZuki]

Dont alter life on someone elses "theory".

George Carlin has a response to it, Im with him on it

 

[ZedMikey]

I've never presented any studies that show man made global warming is false or true. My position on this issue has always been that it is too corrupted by money and politics. People who believe something and their living depends on it being true will never be unbiased, especially when it's based on politicians money. We're trusting the people who depend on man influenced global warming to be true to tell us if it's true or not. I know you trust and have faith that "scientists" to give us pure, unbiased results but their money depends on it being true. I trust and have faith that people want to be paid and keep their jobs. Therefore, live on man made global warming.:awesomework:

You still don't get it. Individual "scientists" might give us screwed up info. Whether it's from incompetence, malice, whatever... it happens. But what you believe requires the entire climate science community to be in on a multinational conspiracy that includes government, academic, and private entities working together without anyone knowing. That puts you in the tinfoil hat crowd.

 

[ZedMikey]

Dont alter life on someone elses "theory".

George Carlin has a response to it, Im with him on it

How many times are we going to have to go through the whole "theory" bull****? Gravity is just someone else's "theory," too...

 

[whatthe?]

You still don't get it. Individual "scientists" might give us screwed up info. Whether it's from incompetence, malice, whatever... it happens. But what you believe requires the entire climate science community to be in on a multinational conspiracy that includes government, academic, and private entities working together without anyone knowing. That puts you in the tinfoil hat crowd.

The "community" (politicians, scientists, environmentalists, ect) has decided that man influenced climate change is what's happening, so any voices to the contrary are shouted down through peer review, loss of funding, political speech, ect. If you want to exist in that community, you have to be on board or you won't even get started. The position is man made global warming is fact... Now we get the data to support it. My wife and I have both seen numerous studies get killed because the data didn't show the conclusion needed to keep funding, jobs or a political ideology intact. It's not a global conspiracy, it's individuals protecting themselves.

 

[Jaydog]

A'ight... so here's the gist of the recent article in Nature (it's a short piece in the Letters section, if anyone cares). Skip to the end for the short version.

The new data they have presented is that North Pacific sea surface temperatures in the late Miocene were warmer than present, and when combined with previous data (they actually cite the paper I posted from the American Geophysical Union, among others that are older), it reinforces that the climate sensitivity to the CO2 forcing was less back then.

Their model also shows that the decoupling (this is a bit of a misleading term... it isn't truly decoupled, the effects are just dwarfed by other forcings) of atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures is a result of tectonic changes in the structures of the oceans leading to high atmospheric water vapor concentrations (a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2).

They go into some detail about how the tectonic changes affected oceanic thermoclines, how those thermoclines play into sea surface temperatures, and how the sea surface temperatures play into atmospheric CO2 levels.

In a nutshell... they presented data to show why the late Miocene global temps were high when the CO2 levels were low (increased atmospheric water vapor due to oceanic/tectonic changes)... and that data fits just fine with what climate science has been saying.

Hmmm, sounds like something I said about 50 pages ago or so, the Earth is going to warm and cool on it's own, it always has and always will, getting rid of SUV's won't change anything. :D

 

[LiftedZuki]

How many times are we going to have to go through the whole "theory" bull****? Gravity is just someone else's "theory," too...

We have no effect on this world. **** happens. Tomorrow we could all be extinct from something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5XN5XTmu6c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[ZedMikey]

The "community" (politicians, scientists, environmentalists, ect) has decided that man influenced climate change is what's happening, so any voices to the contrary are shouted down through peer review, loss of funding, political speech, ect. If you want to exist in that community, you have to be on board or you won't even get started. The position is man made global warming is fact... Now we get the data to support it. My wife and I have both seen numerous studies get killed because the data didn't show the conclusion needed to keep funding, jobs or a political ideology intact. It's not a global conspiracy, it's individuals protecting themselves.

The "community" does not include politicians or environmentalists. The community includes published research scientists... and only published research scientists. Politicians and environmentalists

But you're saying it is the vast majority of individuals protecting themselves. Most climate scientists are pushing out incorrect data to keep their funding. That is asinine! The data from so many different areas (geographic and scientific) is in concordance that you would either have to believe it to be a global conspiracy or that the vast majority of climate scientists are professionally unethical. Either way, where's your evidence?

Studies get killed all the time for a variety of (sometimes stupid) reasons. That doesn't mean that EVERY study is tainted by money and/or politics.

 

[ZedMikey]

Hmmm, sounds like something I said about 50 pages ago or so, the Earth is going to warm and cool on it's own, it always has and always will, getting rid of SUV's won't change anything. :D

Sure... the Earth will continue on its merry way with or without us. That does not mean we don't have influence on the path it takes. It also does not mean the huge amount of CO2 those SUVs are pumping into the atmosphere isn't affecting the climate.

We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that the climate and CO2 are not currently decoupled by high water vapor levels.

In short, that paper has absolutely nothing to do with backing up anything you have said in this thread.

 

[ZedMikey]

We have no effect on this world. **** happens. Tomorrow we could all be extinct from something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5XN5XTmu6c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Fail. George Carlin was funny, but he knew nothing about science. That much is obvious. His rant is humorous, but as with many arguments in this thread, most of it is based on logical fallacies like arguments from personal incredulity.

We have a profound effect on this world, and could have an even larger effect if we get stupid. Like George Carlin failed to account for in his rant, how many species have we hunted to extinction? That is not a natural phenomenon; that is us affecting our world.

Climate change is unlikely to cause humans to go extinct. With our technological prowess, we can probably handle any but the most extreme global climate possibilities. Other species may not fare so well, but **** happens, right? Sometimes, we're the cause of that **** happening. We do affect our world.

 

[LiftedZuki]

Me or the millions of companies in china?

shut down businesses not recreational vehicles.

 

[CrustyJeep]

We have a profound effect on this world, and could have an even larger effect if we get stupid.

Nonsense! My desire to drive a large inefficient vehicle is proof that you are wrong :D

 

[whatthe?]

The "community" does not include politicians or environmentalists. The community includes published research scientists... and only published research scientists. Politicians and environmentalists

But you're saying it is the vast majority of individuals protecting themselves. Most climate scientists are pushing out incorrect data to keep their funding. That is asinine! The data from so many different areas (geographic and scientific) is in concordance that you would either have to believe it to be a global conspiracy or that the vast majority of climate scientists are professionally unethical. Either way, where's your evidence?

Studies get killed all the time for a variety of (sometimes stupid) reasons. That doesn't mean that EVERY study is tainted by money and/or politics.

We're back to disagreeing on definitions. Politicians are part of the community because their votes, law fund most of the research being done on climate. They have an interest in the outcomes of said research. You forget, it's man influenced global warming is true and the research that follows is to fit in with that statement or it doesn't make it. Not every area of research has as much political and finacial investment so it's less likely to be corrupted. Global warming is a unique area of study because of this, and very vulnerable to influence and corruption because of money and politics.

 

[whatthe?]

.

We have a profound effect on this world, and could have an even larger effect if we get stupid. Like George Carlin failed to account for in his rant, how many species have we hunted to extinction? That is not a natural phenomenon; that is us affecting our world.

We are part of the world, what we do is not out side of the natural world. Humans hunting animals to extinction show those species were not fit to survive. You do believe in survival of the fittest? If another animal hunts a species to extinction it's natural? But if we do it, it's somehow different. That's a pretty moral idea from a scientist.

 

[LiftedZuki]

We are part of the world, what we do is not out side of the natural world. Humans hunting animals to extinction show those species were not fit to survive. You do believe in survival of the fittest? If another animal hunts a species to extinction it's natural? But if we do it, it's somehow different. That's a pretty moral idea from a scientist.

i agree

 

[WA-Wheeler]

We are currently in a mass extinction era......not the only one but the fifth! It has happened in the past, and its happening now. The only variable is humans, not sure what the future will hold in this aspect and we will never know in our generation....

 

[Jaydog]

Sure... the Earth will continue on its merry way with or without us. That does not mean we don't have influence on the path it takes. It also does not mean the huge amount of CO2 those SUVs are pumping into the atmosphere isn't affecting the climate.

We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that the climate and CO2 are not currently decoupled by high water vapor levels.

In short, that paper has absolutely nothing to do with backing up anything you have said in this thread.

It's ok, now science has found that Co2 will actually help us and lessen the effects of Global Warming......Co2 saves the humans :cheer::cheer:

http://www.thebunsenburner.com/news...-indirectly-lessen-effects-of-global-warming/

 

[ZedMikey]

It's ok, now science has found that Co2 will actually help us and lessen the effects of Global Warming......Co2 saves the humans :cheer::cheer:

http://www.thebunsenburner.com/news...-indirectly-lessen-effects-of-global-warming/

As usual, Jay is vastly overstating things. Here's NASA's page about the discovery.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ocean-bloom.html

Fast-growing phytoplankton consume large amounts of carbon dioxide. The study concludes that scientists will have to reassess the amount of carbon dioxide entering the Arctic Ocean through biological activity if the under-ice blooms turn out to be common.

What this means is that if these blooms are common, our current models of CO2 absorption in the Arctic are incorrect and need modification. This doesn't change anything about current global atmospheric CO2 levels, however, since we measure those directly.

If these blooms become increasingly common as the Arctic ice continues to thin, the phytoplankton may help sequester more atmospheric CO2. They may even be able to hold the CO2 levels at some plateau while we continue to add CO2 to the Earth's carbon cycle. The problem with that thought, however, is that phytoplankton levels everywhere else are dropping.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/nature09268.html

Our analysis suggests that global Chl concentration has declined since the beginning of oceanographic measurements in the late 1800s. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that these changes are generally related to climatic and oceanographic variability and particularly to increasing SST [sea surface temperatures] over the past century (Fig. 6). The negative effects of SST on Chl trends are particularly pronounced in tropical and subtropical oceans, where increasing stratification limits nutrient supply. Regional climate variability can induce variation around these long-term trends (Fig. 4), and coastal processes such as land runoff may modify Chl trends in nearshore waters. The long-term global declines observed here are, however, unequivocal. These results provide a larger context for recently observed declines in remotely sensed Chl and are consistent with the hypothesis that increasing ocean warming is contributing to a restructuring of marine ecosystems with implications for biogeochemical cycling fishery yields and ocean circulation. Such consequences provide incentive for an enhanced in situ and space-borne observational basis to reduce uncertainties in future projections.

Will an increase in Arctic blooms make up for decreases in the rest of the world?

 

[CrustyJeep]

The problem with that thought, however, is that phytoplankton levels everywhere else are dropping.

Any idea why that would be? On the surface (of the subject, not the ocean :flipoff:) it would seem that increased oceanic CO2 and temperature would cause plankton to grow more abundantly.