Global warming?

[classicman]

I agree with Pierce and Redux on this point. In fact, we need data over thousands of years to properly determine anything related to a potential "global warming." A few decades of any kind of trend is the equivalent of a second in the grand scheme, as any climatologist worth listening to will tell you.

[SamIam]

Well, actually they do have hundreds if not thousands of years of data. Tree rings from bristle cone pines (the oldest living thing on earth) and ice cores from the artic and antartic going down several thousand feet which represents quite a few years, also...

[jinx]

and ice cores from the artic and antartic

Right, like from Vostok, (antarctic) which show a pattern of climate change.

[SamIam]

I don’t know where your graph came from. It looks like one of the ones used in the research article, “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica”
By J. R. Petit, et al.

Its all very well to look at pretty pictures, but quite another to wade through the science. I won’t inflict the entire article on anyone, but here’s the abstract (emphasis my own)

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable bounds.Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

Anyone who cares to may wade through the mathematics, physics and climatology in this article can click on http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

Here’s a snippet for those of you with insomnia:

The overall correlation between our CO2 andCH4 records and the Antarctic isotopic temperature 5,9,16 is remarkable (r2 ¼ 0:71 and 0.73 for CO2 and CH4, respectively). This high correlation indicates that CO2 and CH4 may have contributed to the glacial–interglacial changes over this entire period by amplifying the orbital forcing along with albedo, and possibly other changes15,16. We have calculatedthe direct radiative forcing corresponding to the CO2, CH4 and N2O changes16. The largest CO2 change, which occurs between
stages 10 and 9, implies a direct radiative warming of DTrad ¼ 0:75 8C. Adding the effects of CH4 and N2O at this termination increases the forcing to 0.95 8C (here we assume that N2O varies with climate as during termination I37). This initial forcing is amplified by positive feedbacks associated with water vapour, sea ice, and possibly clouds (although in a different way for a ‘doubled CO2’ situation than for a glacial climate38). The total glacial–interglacial forcing is important (,3Wm2), representing 80% of that corresponding to the difference between a ‘doubled CO2’ world and modern CO2 climate. Results from various climate simulations 39,40 make it reasonable to ssume that greenhouse gases have, at a global scale, contributed significantly (possibly about half, that is, 2–3 8C) to the globally averaged glacial–interglacial temperature change.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The overall correlation between our CO2 andCH4 records and the Antarctic isotopic temperature 5,9,16 is remarkable (r2 ¼ 0:71 and 0.73 for CO2 and CH4, respectively). This high correlation indicates that CO2 and CH4 may have contributed to the glacial–interglacial changes over this entire period by amplifying the orbital forcing along with albedo, and possibly other changes15,16. We have calculatedthe direct radiative forcing corresponding to the CO2, CH4 and N2O changes16. The largest CO2 change, which occurs between
stages 10 and 9, implies a direct radiative warming of DTrad ¼ 0:75 8C. Adding the effects of CH4 and N2O at this termination increases the forcing to 0.95 8C (here we assume that N2O varies with climate as during termination I37). This initial forcing is amplified by positive feedbacks associated with water vapour, sea ice, and possibly clouds (although in a different way for a ‘doubled CO2’ situation than for a glacial climate38). The total glacial–interglacial forcing is important (,3Wm2), representing 80% of that corresponding to the difference between a ‘doubled CO2’ world and modern CO2 climate. Results from various climate simulations 39,40 make it reasonable to ssume that greenhouse gases have, at a global scale, contributed significantly (possibly about half, that is, 2–3 8C) to the globally averaged glacial–interglacial temperature change.

[tw]

Originally Posted by SamIam

I don’t know where your graph came from.

It's typical of graphs edited by a political agenda. Another example of what happens when White House lawyers rewrite the science.

Actual Vostok graphs demonstrate a scary problem. Jinx picture conveniently eliminates the last 100 years. That citation shows the usual and lesser changes that occur over thousands of years - some directly traceable to extraordinary events. But nothing in earth's 400,000 year history has seen temperatures rise this high AND this fast.

Eliminate political agendas and the junk science reasoning; then science overwhelmingly acknowledges this global warming problem. We know man has seriously changed the climate. Question is how much and how much must change to avert this problem. The trend is well established. All that remains is refining the numbers. Earth has never seen temperatures this high. Earth has never seen temperatures increase this quickly in a hundred years. See the chart that was not edited by political agendas. Notice how the jinx chart forgot to include the last 100 years to manipulate a conclusion.

We can debate the merits and cost/benefits of a comprehensive energy/climate bill.

But please, lets not start with the dishonest distortion of the facts by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (or the American Enterprise Institute) as was the case in Merc's most recent cut/post.

That's bad news for taxpayers. The Obama administration reluctantly admitted last month that cap-and-trade would cost the average American family $1,761 a year.

That is a rosy prediction. A Heritage Foundation analysis pegs the cost at an average of $2,979 a year and as much as $4,600 a year by 2035. Jobs will disappear, energy prices will skyrocket, and the American Dream will become an unattainable fantasy for many.

Talk about the "sky is falling" ..."jobs will disappear, energy prices will skyrocket, and the American Dream will become an unattainable fantasy for many."

“Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.”
~ Mark Twain

[classicman]

Redux - where are the cow farts on that chart of yours?

Originally Posted by classicman

Redux - where are the cow farts on that chart of yours?

"Sigh"....a tired old diversionary tactic to ignore the fact that the US alone spews more than 5 billion metric tons of man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere every year and that those emissions levels are neither natural nor sustainable and will only further degrade the atmosphere and the environment unless action is taken.

Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

"Sigh"....a tired old diversionary tactic to ignore the fact that the US alone spews more than 5 billion metric tons of man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere every year and that those emissions levels are neither natural nor sustainable and will only further degrade the atmosphere and the environment unless action is taken.

Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

Been there, done that.

[richlevy]

From here

Study: Arctic Ice Will Melt in 10 Years
British Explorers Return from North Pole with Ice Data Suggesting it Will Soon Disappear in Summer Months

The North Pole will turn into an open sea during summer within a decade, according to data released by a team of explorers who trekked through the Arctic for three months.

CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports that the explorers walked - and swam - 280 miles across the Arctic ice of the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, drilling hundreds of ice samples as they went.

The Catlin Arctic Survey team, led by explorer Pen Hadow, measured the thickness of the ice as it sledged through the northern part of the Beaufort Sea earlier this year during their research project. Their findings show that most of the ice in the region is first-year ice that is only around six feet deep and will melt next summer. The region has traditionally contained, thicker multiyear ice which does not melt as rapidly.

So will we have global warming deniers and corporate lobbyists tying up efforts to stop this until it's too late?

[SamIam]

Oh, stop being such a spoilsport. Who cares about things like the Gulf Stream, drought, oppressive heat, and a few dead reindeers and Eskimo's?

Let's make lemonaide out of lemons. The surviving Eskimo's are sitting on (or dog paddeling in) a fortune. Pretty soon the arctic will be everyone's favorite vacation get away with its cool breezes that gently ruffle the fur of all those dead polar bears. I'm sure Bill Gates or someone is even now beginning on the plans to build several luxury resorts. I believe Disney has an option, as well. Let's all sing together now, "Its a small world...)

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Redux - where are the cow farts on that chart of yours?

Is it considered man-made CO2 if the reason for all the cow farts is that man has increased the cow population so that it has more cows and cow-like substances to consume? Would there be fewer cow farts if the natural order of cows and cow predators kept cow populations low?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Is it considered man-made CO2 if the reason for all the cow farts is that man has increased the cow population so that it has more cows and cow-like substances to consume? Would there be fewer cow farts if the natural order of cows and cow predators kept cow populations low?

Cow flatulence, which the deniers always want to toss into the discussion, is more a methane issue.

But, the massive deforestation worldwide by the cattle (and other) industry to meet the demand for more grazing land certainly contributes to the CO2 emission problem.

The larger issue for me is that billions of tons of unnatural man made CO2 emissions (from autos, coal fired power plants, deforestation, etc) belched into the atmosphere every year will eventually surpass the ability of the oceans and plants to absorb them and maintain stasis....if it hasnt already.

I think it is unfortunate, but not surprising, that some would still rather stick their head up a cow's ass as a excuse or justification to ignore the excessive anthropogenic CO2 emission problem.