:nono: No Fuel Day - 19/11/07

i was thinking more of the longersolar cycles actually. the sun is rhythms upon rhythms.

Mars is warming by a comparable amount anyway.

Didn't they say that we've got until 2050 to rectify our CO2 emissions?

Well, by that time, I'll be 80 (and probably not know who I am or who anybody else is)!

Carry on smoking!

EdelBrock wrote: If yer talking sunspots as solar intensty increases, their amount is negligible... but added to many other things they can tip the climate one way or other... more importantly is the eccentricity of orbit around the sun, the Eath's tilt and precession. These are main drivers... but climate can't be pinned on only one thing (i.e. CO2).. it is the interact of the biosphere, geosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, astronomy and all the chemical processes inbetween... there is no simple graph (like Gore likes to show) to explain the climate... short term or long term....

Plus here's fun info for you Cambo... if global warming keeps happening did you know that Europe will go through a little ice age? You'll have ice front property there in Britian, where you'll have trouble growing even yer prized potatoes... where was Gore on that fun interesting little expectation of global warming?

Well, yes, its the interaction of many factors, but that's precisely what the climate modellers model. And the result is a prediction of significant warming.

Personally I used to be agnostic. 'The Satanic Gases' was one of the most scientifically literate presentations of the case against anthropomorphic C02 driven warming, but since the major objections raised in that book seem to have been resolved (upper atmosphere temperature soundings anomaly - corrected for both balloons and satellites, cooling post WW2 - shown to be due to particulate pollution, alternative sunspot->cloud formation theory - fails to fit the data post 1980), I now reckon its most likely true.

Also I believe the models now show the Gulf Stream won't turn off (thank God!) so the UK won't freeze.

Sadly, I don't think there's a snowflake in hell's chance that anything will be done about it. The costs are so high and the room for creating doubt so large. I just hope the warming is on the lower end of the predictions. The UK will probably do OK, though we'd have to withdraw from the EU to stop all the southern Europeans moving here to escape desertification.

(solar cycles can't be causing it directly, the sun's output hasn't changed significantly. And the sunspot-clouds theory, which briefly sounded convincing, doesn't fit the data after 1980, apparently, which is why the graph they showed on 'the great global warming swindle' ended abruptly at that date.)

There is no doubt global warming is happening, and CO2 does play a factor in it... however it is impossible to see how the earth's systems will react to the change in temperature. There are many feedbacks into the system that could cause paradoxes during a warming period. The main issue is that, from our measurements of ice cores and ocean floor cores, we are having more CO2 than has been dated for 250,000 years... and we don't know what will happen... models are nice, but even thee 3 dimensional models can't predict what will happen, there are simply too many factors that bounce off each other.

The NAC shutoff is a possibility, especially because the artic shelf fell into the sea a few years back... it is believed that it was keeping the ice on the continental shelf... with the added warmth and the pressure of the ice, could cause water to form at the ice/ground contact, and act as a lubricant. The worry is that the ice will all slip into the sea... that increase of fresh water in the Atlantic will shut the NAC off, as it is the salinity and temperature that run the current. If this did happen it would shoot Europe into a similar event like the Younger Dryas, which was the last time the current shut off. If the NAC shutoff, drastic climate changes in Europe would happen in as little as 10 years.

But the models do show that the main drivers of our climates are the Earth's eccentricity, tilt and precession. There are many things that can push it one way or other, but at least they believe it enough that all the models use this as the base equation... everything else is simply added to it. I'll try to find some graphs that illistrate how our climate is linked to these, and it's quite appartent looking at it.

GRAPHS OF: 100000 year is Eccentricity 41000 year is Tilt 23000 year is Precession

This shows if you add the following of the aspects of the Earth's orbit (from graph1), the amplitudes added form the bottom graph here.

This shows the O18 content of climates (from ice cores, seafloor cores, etc.) and how they corrilate with the Earth's orbit graph2... this shows basically how glaciations and warming coincide with each other.

*O18 concentration in ice shows climate temperature. Basically there are two forms of oxygen, O16 and O18 (the number being nuetrons). O16 is lighter so evaporates off the ocean more readily. In hot enviroments O18 also evaporates, but in cold mostly O16 does. The ratio of O16/O18 calculates the climate of the time.*

This shows ice thickness in a given year as measured from the ice core samples. The thicker the ice, the colder it was obviously, but if you look at the Earth's orbit graph2 you can see how they coincide

This one shows all the above in one simple graph, this is the easiest to understand, but thought the others would help explain it further...

I thought I'd never say this, but I think I need Cambo to make sense of these graphs. ;)

Are they the same ones used in the that Climate Swindle Documentary?

In the words of Snorrie, "use a pie chart."

Ron,

Sorry, should have posted info on the bottom to explain what you are looking at. I edited it to explain a little more, so hopefully this answers yer quuestions?

What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

Relax people, you need to deal with the fact that the planet is not ours and that we have no right to totally halt it's development.

I mentioned before, that BBC series "Coast" where they constantly made a huge deal of all the changes that had happened round the UK in the last few hundred to few thousand years and made comments like "change is the very essence of coastline". THEN got to some bit of the coast that is ABOUT to change and it was like "ooooh we are irresponsible evil cunts, we HAVE to stop this happening, oh woe is us". Fucking comical.

I think those graphs show what is known as the Milankovitch cycle, right? (I once knew someone doing a PhD on that topic, not that I know much about it apart from the name)

But my understanding is that all that stuff is incorporated in the models and can't explain recent warming (the timescale is quite different anyway - having just looked it up its a 100,000 year cycle, not a question of decades as the recent trend has been).

I wonder if Gore's movie (which I haven't seen) is doing more harm than good? Are people getting hung up on the C02/temperature graph that he shows?

Its not as if climate scientists base the theory on that graph, just looking at the correlation and saying C02 causes warming. (The C02 change in that graph lags the temperature change anyway - the argument is that there's a feedback effect)

The verdict on global warming comes from the predictions of the models, which include all the known science, including the Milankovic cycle, and which show you need the human produced C02 to get predict the current degree of warming and predict C02 will make the warming worse in future. The models now do a reasonably good job of 'retrodicting' the past climate, which implies they include enough of the factors to be relied on.

My understanding is that the cycles you show are the relatively better understood parts of the model, the biggest uncertainties are over things like water vapour.

But yeah, I don't think there will every be quite enough certainty in the models to persuade people to pay the huge costs needed to stop warming. So we are probably all screwed.

Doctor? wrote: What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

Relax people, you need to deal with the fact that the planet is not ours and that we have no right to totally halt it's development.

But we understand the factors that made the earth warmer before, and when we include those in the model they don't explain the present warming - human made C02 does. We aren't trying to halt its development, merely not to change it ourselves quite so rapidly.

Oh, just understood your point about where the C02 came from, you're saying living organisms took the C02 out and now living organisms are putting it back? A bit too cosmic/fatalistic for me. Surely 'rights' are a human invention anyway, so if we want to give ourselves such a 'right' we can?

Edit - another objection, 'life' originally took the C02 out over a very long time period, millions of years, giving the planet time to readjust - the point about human C02 production is that its put a huge amount back in over an extremely short time-scale.

And the desire to avoid global warming isn't about a fuzzy new-age idea that we shouldn't change the planet, its about the practical consequences for human beings.

Doctor? wrote: What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

ummmmm... those graphs have nothing to do with CO2 content there Cambo.....

Shhhh!! It's so much easier to shout IMPEACH BUSH...

...even if there is more evidence now than ever that it could be a possibility, given McClellan's account of the Plame affair. Fingers crossed, but the Democratic Congress of Pussies can't do shit about anything.

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote: What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

ummmmm... those graphs have nothing to do with CO2 content there Cambo.....

Exactly!

Doctor? wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote: What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

ummmmm... those graphs have nothing to do with CO2 content there Cambo.....

Exactly!

aaahhhhhhh! Totally read that differently the first time 'round... got it