You think global warming is a problem?

through all oceans goes one giant stream. It goes in dirrection from north and all around the world to the antartica. when earth will get real hot, there will be too much fresh water in the worlds ocans - this will stop the mechanism from what the water from the deep down will stop to go up to the higher levels of the ocean, thus salt water won't any more evaporate from the ocean. These factors will stop the giant all ocean stream i.e. there will be no circulation of the warm/hot water. And because of this "only most brave people will live to the north of Birmingham" (discovery channel).
Most people just don't realise how much the circulation of the warm waters matter. Without the gulf stream weather in northen europe would have been a lot colder. And if all the mechanism stops , not only the gulf mainstream, then get prepered to the next ICEAGE.

The forst iceage appeared some 20m jears ago. Scientist think tht tht is because of some metiorite hit. maybe the one who destroyed the dinosaurs 65m years ago (it disballanced climate on all the planet and maybe it took 35m years to trigger the first iceage.)
From then on we have a rotation of long iceage periods and short warm periods. All our civilization appeared and is living in the latest warm age period.

We know of the rotation of iceages because of samples from the greenland ice and remains of plancton in deep deep ocean bed.

but I think we and our technology will survive the next iceage, I think tht we are more advanced and widespread thn the atlantis civilization (note_ancient sunken city by the coasts of india has been found. scientists estimate it to be atleast 15000-20000 years old, because of the water level).

edit to add-> scientists have found out tht the last iceage came into being in only a 10 year time period

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

huummmmmmm, was I wrong , kmguru?
through all oceans goes one giant stream. It goes in dirrection from north and all around the world to the antartica. when earth will get real hot, there will be too much fresh water in the worlds ocans - this will stop the mechanism from what the water from the deep down will stop to go up to the higher levels of the ocean, thus salt water won't any more evaporate from the ocean. These factors will stop the giant all ocean stream i.e. there will be no circulation of the warm/hot water. And because of this "only most brave people will live to the north of Birmingham" (discovery channel).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, from your graph, you're predicting a 400 year cycle of global warming with a peak of 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperature, correct? (Or did I misinterpret the graph?) You're also assuming there will be some major change (like an earthquake or volcano) about 200 years from now that will reverse the upward trend in temperature rather than a gradual shift, correct?

This doesn't sound catastrophic (although it won't be easy), but I guess the question is whether your timeframe and peak are correct.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that you were -- just that "catastrophy" is what comes to my mind when talking of "global warming".

I would also think that more data from wider ranges of history are also important.

However, as they say in financial investment, "past history is no guarantee of future returns". So, to give your prediction weight, what I was looking for was an indication of what mechanism would be used to bring down the temperature. From there, the question was whether there would continue to be enough of the mechanism to make the global change (for instance, if the mechanism is tropical forest recycling of CO2 to O2, then how much forest would be necessary and would we have enough?).

What I didn't pay enough attention to was the timescale you were using. Your prediction is for a high around 2200 whereas many others seem to put the high (or, at least, intolerable levels) in the next 50-100 years. You're suggesting a (reasonably) steady increase whereas others are beginning to think it will be more exponential (for instance, see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-04/uom-ewt041102.php).

Thus, my point about the correctness of your prediction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My answers

quote: <font color=blue>"* Do you believe that the earth has periods of global warming and global cooling?"</font>

<B>YES</B>. (You should have said :<b>"natural periods or cycles"</b>)

quote: <font color=blue>* If so, do you believe that the earth is currently in a period of global warming? </font>

<B>YES</B>, it has been warming -naturally- since the end of the <B>Little Ice Age</B> about 1860. It cooled again from 1940 to 1962 -also naturally- and has warmed a little since then. But the trend for the last 70 years is still <b>towards cooling</B>. According to the Milantkovitch cycles, the Holocene (present warm period) has lasted for 10,500 years already. So we are now at the end of the warm period and should be heading towards the next glaciation.

quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that severe global warming can occur in short periods of time (much less than 100 years)? </font>

YES, it has happened before, when the Medieval Climatic Optimum began back in 850 AD. You should have specified what do you mean by "severe". 1°C, 2°C, 4°C, 10°C or more?

quote: <font color=blue>* If so, do you believe that the activities of man is and will be making this period of global warming much more severe? </font>

NO. Absolutely NOT. Man´s activities only add about 3% of the <b>alleged</b> greenhouse gas CO2. Nature's contribution accounts for about 97%. Besides that, CO2 contributes with only 3,5% of the "heat retention hability" of the atmosphere, while water vapor accounts for more than 95% of such hability.

quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that "runaway" global warming is a possibility (that is warming that is so severe and so fast that most life is wiped out before the earth can compensate)? </font>

NO. During the Cretaceous period (about 60 - 90 million years ago), CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were in the range of 6,000 to 2,600 ppm --that is, they decreased from 6,000 ppm 90 million YBP (years before present) to 2,600 ppp 60 Million YBP. During that period, paleoclimatic proxy studies revealed that global temperatures then were <b>only 1,5°C higher than today</b>. Of course, there was not "runaway" warming, either global or local, not even when CO2 concentrations were weel above those 6,000 parts per million ( about 2,000 times more than present levels).

quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that severe global warming could have a very detrimental effect on a significant portion of life on the earth (including man)? </font>

<b>DEPENDS</b> on what you mean by <b>"severe"</b>. 2°C higher than now, will take us to the same global temperatures occurring during the aforementioned Medieval Climatic Optimum --that is, the <b>BEST and OPTIMUM</B> temperatures for sustaining life on Earth, either human, vegetal, animal or acquatic. Although Greenland had most of its surface <B>free of ice</B>, the Poles didn't melt, the sea levels didn't rise. The Vikigns were colonizing Greenland (I wonder why the Vikings gave that name to the presently ice covered island), and northern Canada. Although climatologists have classified 2°C more than today as the <b>OPTIMUM</b> temperature, politicians have classified it as <B>APOCALYPTIC</B>. Whom do you trust in scientific matters? Scientists or politicians? (I know politicians cannot be trusted even in politics, so there it goes...)

quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that global warming that results in signifcant death of the human population on earth would be a "good thing" or a "bad thing"?</font>

Please quantify <b>"significant".</B> Significant death of human population is already happening. Just take a look at Third World countries where malaria alone kills 4.000. 000 people every year. Add to this figure famines, diseases caused by undernourishment, pests, insect borne fevers and diseases, lack of sound drinking water, cholera, typhus, civil and military wars, slavery, drugs, guerrilla warfare, terrorism (all of these increased now by "globalization") and you'll have a staggering (significant) figure. But "warming" must be in the range of <b>tens of Centigrade degrees</b> for coming close to these figures regarding human population deaths.

quote: <font color=blue>* Do you believe that man should do something to curb or curtail its activities in order to control global warming? </font>

<B>NO. Why should he do it?</B> Curtailing activities would only increase poverty, economic recession, increase unemployement (perhaps -or surely- yours) and send back mankind to the Dark Ages. Curbing CO2 emissions --as Kyoto Treaty wants-- won't affect the warming or cooling of the atmosphere. Some scientists even say it would only delay the "warming" for just 6 years: from 2050 tp 2056. And this delay is not woth the enormous burden imposed to mankind by the huge increase in costs of ANYTHING on this planet.

Others say it will only affect that 3% of CO2 contributed by human activities so it won't affect a cinch the warming, as they say there is really a <b>cooling going on</b>, so it would only make things worse. (And they may be right!).. Keep it going. We are doing better every day. We can improve our way of life, if we do positive things, (as we have been doing since we left the caves) but not by negative thinking and insane bans and regulations.

What will cause the shift towards cooling? natural climatic cycles, where many factors contribute (sun's energy output, tilt of the Earth's axis, presession of the equinoxes, etc).

Where will the heat go? part will go to the oceans, and the rest to outer space (as it is happening right now).

You forgot to include among the people who profit from the global warming scare the horde of scientists who thrive on government money and grants that want them to "prove" that Earth will warm to catastrophic levels. Also many corporative lobbies that are interested in geopolitics, world governance, and other profitable calamities.

 

quote](for instance, if the mechanism is tropical forest recycling of CO2 to O2, then how much forest would be necessary and would we have enough?). ... What I didn't pay enough attention to was the timescale you were using. Your prediction is for a high around 2200 whereas many others seem to put the high (or, at least, intolerable levels) in the next 50-100 years.[/quote]

Actually, <b>adult</b> forests and jungles do not contribute with oxygen because their oxygen balance is <b>negative</B>, that is, adult forests produce more CO2 than they take from the air. (Studies by Bert Bolin, back in the 70s. Bolin is now the head of the IPCC).

As I posted above, the <b>intolerable</b> levels mentioned by the "Warmers", are what climatologists in the 70s termed as <b>OPTIMUM</b> temperatures.

 

Exponential heat

Not true. The Earth is a (relatively) closed system and, thus, will tend to keep itself in balance OVER THE LONG HAUL, but, as your graph shows, it will fluctuate within shorter timescales due to many factors (like Sun/Moon tidal effects, atmospheric gases, Earth tilt, and so on). There may even be several factors going on at one time causing seasonal, yearly, decade, century, and millenial changes that all show up at (nearly) the same time. The question is whether MAN has graduated to being one of those factors.

Again, not true. A large nuclear explosion would be akin to a volcanic eruption in that it could put a lot of stuff into the atmosphere that would adversely impact heat regulation in a short period of time (ie. less than a year). That's not an exponential rise, but rather a catastrophic rise. An exponential rise would be caused by pumping stuff into the atmosphere more slowly, but not removing it as fast as it's being put in. That is the question of CO2 production. If CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, then we're beginning an exponential growth in heat. The Earth may have a mechanism for removing that CO2 that will eventually kick in, but will it kick in in time for US?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

other gases?

Has anyone read 'satanic gases?' I saw the author talk about his book on television last week, I believe it was. What does the word CATO [in CATO institute] stand for -- just a side note there.

 

The beginning post in this thread contained a myopic statement which referred jestingly to a 1.2 degree increase in global temperature.
If only it were that simplistic. To jest about about a 1.2 degree increase in temperature shows a real lack of perspective. Posts by Northwind and Avatar I think bring up a few very good points. I believe it is a huge miscalculation to act as though there isn't a complex and important interrelationship b/w human action, greenhouse gases, the ozone layer, global warming, weather patterns/changes, the jet stream, etc. etc. etc. Each has effects on each and all.
From a post: "Global warming is a natural process"
Hell yeah---until you throw some laboratory produced chemicals into the mix---in extremely large quantities---chemicals which catalyze reactions that destroy ozone; (just a mention)
From a post: "The earth was witness to an atmosphere with 10 times as much CO2 and here we are complaining about it"
Far be it for me to complain, but I don't look fondly upon a past where the atmosphere had ten times as much CO2 in it and the only living things were bacteria/viruses nor a future earth where the same is true.

 

Re: Re: Exponential heat

But I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that the regulatory system of the Earth is on a much longer timescale than the human, animal, or plant life that inhabits it. Sure there are things that happen on a daily, monthly, or yearly basis (weather patterns), but there are also things that happen on geologic timescales (like ice ages) to regulate the balance of the Earth. I don't think anyone's saying that the Earth won't eventually return to balance (I have heard of a "runaway warming" scenario, but I hardly think it likely). The question is how severe the perturbation will be and whether we (the human race) will still be here when it's over. Finally, if the fluctuation is going to be severe, did we cause it and can we fix it?

You're ignoring the point that a large nuclear explosion is not the only way that man might cause exponentially accelerating global warming. Putting something into the atmosphere faster than it is taken out (as in the various greenhouse gases) would also qualify if that something has a cumulative effect on global warming (or cooling). I don't have a link at the moment, but I've seen studies before that show greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rising quite rapidly over the past few decades. This is what led to my initial question of what mechanism you were predicting would begin the cool down (but I missed the timescale you were talking about).

p.s. you'll note that nowhere above am I stating my position on global warming. I'm seeking "expert" opinion here, but I'm expecting it to be backed up with (understandable

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) data to justify it.

 

Re: My answers

Note, I was trying to be somewhat vague in my questions purposely in order to not put words in people's mouths. However, it's hard to balance asking an open question and yet still get it to address the areas you're interested in...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That would've been leading. I hoped that people (like you) would specify their belief in this.

Hmmm. Interesting and some of the information I was looking for.

Again, something I wanted to leave open because I'm not sure what climatologists would classify as severe.

Are there other greenhouse gases? Are the greenhouse gases rising year over year? If so, how long have they been rising? If not, how far back do the measurements go?

"Severe" was left open purposely and what you're saying is that there is some leeway in the warming of the Earth before it becomes a severe problem. I was wondering why kmguru's graphs seemed centered at -2.

Well, climate issues aside, I sometimes wonder if the trends from current activities will actually lead to greater employment, properity, and so on. Sure we had some heady times in the late 90s, but the trend is toward greater automation and efficiency. I sometimes wonder where that will wind up and if it can go too far.

Those are very long timescale items for cooling. Do they come into play in the next ~200 years?

This is a statement that I can't put much credence in. Not because I don't believe it, but more because there is easily an equal statement that can (and often is) made from the other side. That is, what about all the scientists funded by corporations (or governments) that don't want to do anything about "global warming" because it would be too expensive to implement the restrictions.

 

What is the IPCC?

 

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change. The biggest Scaremonger of them all..

 

More questions

Well, before we get into scaremongering, there is still some data that I'm looking for.

• Which gases are known as the "greenhouse gases"?
• What percentage of Earth's atmosphere do they currently represent?
• Has the percentage trended up or down or stayed steady lately?
• Do we know how many years back that trend goes? (>100, I hope?)
• Of that percentage, how much is attributable to man?
• Has that percentage trended up or down lately?
• Of those percentages, what has their rate of change been?
• Do we have figures on how fast the Earth converts "greenhouse gases" into something less problematic? (say, CO2 -> O2)
• What are the major mechanisms that the Earth uses for this conversion?
• If "greenhouse gases" are growing, are they growing faster than Earth's ability to convert them?
• Are there any "sudden" changes climatologists are hoping for to affect the conversion? (volcanoes, sea salt, iceberg melt, ocean methane, etc.)

I just want to make sure all the data (with a reasonable interpretation) is out on the table.

I'll probably think of more questions later.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Some answers

<font color=blue>Which gases are known as the "greenhouse gases"?</font>

All gases in the atmosphere have "heat retention capability", what makes them "greenhouse gases". What we must take into account is: 1) degree of heat retention, 2) concentration in the atmosphere. From there we could make a table of "importance" of the gases. (Although the gases with the highest heat retention are CFCs, they are present in the stratosphere and troposphere at concentrations ranging from 100 ppb (parts per bilion) to 0,1 ppt (parts per trillion), making them worthless as greenhouse gases.

In such <b>Greenhouse Gases Table</b> we would see the most important one is <b>"water vapor"</B> (better known as "relative humidity), because of its huge concentration in the atmosphere. Then comes, lagging far behind, CO2, then Methane, NOx (nitrous oxides), Argon, and other gases whose importance is near zero (as CFCs and ozone, whose concentration is 0,000003 percent, or three millionths percent).

Water vapor accounts for about 95% of the "heat retention" capability of the atmosphere. Humidity comes from the evaporation of water in the oceans (75% of Eart's surface), rivers, lakes, evapoperspiration from forests, jungles, grass lawns, prairies, crops, etc... anything with leaves. CO2 is provided in its 97% by nature (volcanoes, forests and savanas fires, rotting of wood and organic matter in forests and jungles, etc). Man made CO2 amounts to about 3,5%. Methane is mostly provided by nature, (rice paddies, forests, zillion of ants, termites and other insects, and some comes from cattle belching and other bodily functions).

<font color=blue>What percentage of Earth's atmosphere do they currently represent? </font>
Water vapor = 95% - CO2 = 3,5% - Methane = 1%. Other gases = 0,5%

<font color=blue>Has the percentage trended up or down or stayed steady lately?</font>

CO2 has increased from 312 ppm in the 19th century to 365 ppm today. Not much, considering that when CO2 went down from 6,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm during the Cretaceus period (90-60 millions years ago), the temperature remained quite the same (1° C higher than now). But CO2 concentrations, as determined by proxy studies, did not go up when the temperature increased during the Climatic Optimum between 800-1250 AD, when temperatures reached 2°C higher than now. Nor did the concentrations go down when the Little Ice Age came about 1300 AD. This show there is no correllation between <b>CO2 increase</b> and <b>then</b>, temperature increase, (or viceversa). Many studies have shown, though, that some correllation exists: the CO2 increase <b>comes after</B> temperature increase, lagging about 100-300 years. But there is strong and direct positive correllation between sun's activity (sunspots) and climatic change. See:
<A href="http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html"><B>Global Warming: Does it Exist? </B></A>

<font color=blue>Do we know how many years back that trend goes? (>100, I hope?) </font>

See above.

<font color=blue>Of that percentage, how much is attributable to man? </font>

Increase of CO2 can be attributed to mankind in about 3%.

<font color=blue>Has that percentage trended up or down lately? </font>

The trend is upwards since beginning of the 20th century.

<font color=blue>Of those percentages, what has their rate of change been? </font>

CO2: From 312 ppm to 360 ppm in about 150 years.

<font color=blue>Do we have figures on how fast the Earth converts "greenhouse gases" into something less problematic? (say, CO2 -> O2) </font>

For example, measurements from Mount Mauna Loa (Hawaii), showed an accumulation of CO2 aproximately equivalent to a liberation of 3 Gt (giga tons , or million tons) of carbon every year, However, in 1978 and 1979, fossil fuels burned amounted to 5,1 and 5,4 Gt of carbon. More than 2 Gt of carbon (some years more than 2,5 Gt) is absorbed by the oceans and other natural processes perhaps transforming it into limestone (calcium carbonate). Oceanologists and chemists said the oceans cannot absorb such amount, until George Woodwell (Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass.) and Bert Bolin, in Stockholm, proved that the old notion claiming that most CO2 was absorbed by biomass, stimulating growth of forests and jungles in viewe of the more availability of CO2 for photosynthesis was wrong. They proved (independently) that forests and biomass actually can produce more CO2 than they remove from the atmosphere.

Measurements of ice cores from polar samples, showed that during the most recent glaciation (from 11,000 years ago to 100,000 years ago), CO2 concentrations could have been half of today's, probably because cold oceans absorb more CO2, or perhaps there was less green areas producing CO2 (most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with a 3,000 meters high ice layer).

<font color=blue>What are the major mechanisms that the Earth uses for this conversion? </font>
As stated above, oceans absorb CO2, depositing it in the ocean floor. There is small conversion being performed when cement and lime mortars absorb CO2 to be tranformed into calcium carbonate. But this process just reverses the original release of CO2 occurred when cement and lime was manufactured: calcium carbonate transformed into calcium oxide (quick lime), or limestone burned to make cement "clincker".

<font color=blue>If "greenhouse gases" are growing, are they growing faster than Earth's ability to convert them? </font>

CO2 is growing at a rate of 2 ppm per year. Scientists are divided into two groups, those who say CO2 increase is "man-made" (fossil fuels) and hence the warming produced by CO2, and those claiming that CO2 increase is mostly produced by the increased temperatures that produce increased growth of vegetation, and a silght increase in volcanic activity during the 20th century.
--- BTW, hydrocarbons, or oil, <b>are NOT FOSSILS</b>. Fossils are only carbon layers coming from ancient jungles and forests, quite superficial layers, of course. According to the theory of Dr. Thomas Gold, Stanford Univ. Oil is being produced constantly by helium and methane, deep in the Earth's crust (8,000 meters deep and more). This seems plausible, as if oil was produced by ancient forests and jungles, where did those 8,000 -16,000 meters of thick covering came from? That's a lot of sediment necessary for covering the whole Earth. Carbon deposits can be explained this way, but not oil. Just see: <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/FossilFuels.html"><B> "Fossil Fuels are not Fossil"</B></A>.

<font color=blue>Are there any "sudden" changes climatologists are hoping for to affect the conversion? (volcanoes, sea salt, iceberg melt, ocean methane, etc.) </font>

There are not sudden changes in paleoclimatic history. Leave out asteroid impacts. Earth processes are measured in a geological scale, that means, hundred of thousands, or millions of years.

Before you start thinking in more questions, it would be useful if you paid a visit to this link:, where you can get the scientific facts and necessary data: <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/"><B>"Still Waiting for the Greenhouse"</B></A>. There you can find links to other sources and institutions involved in the Global Warming issue. You could also go to: <A HREF="http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html"><b>Kyoto Questions and Answers"</B></A>

Other interesting site that covers most environmental issues (Myths and Frauds) is located at: <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html"><B>"Ecology: Myths and Frauds"</B></A> where you can satisfy your thirst for knowledge. Have a nice trip in the web!