My two question need an answer
no ob
several years:
1) What caused the substantial global warming that melted off the last great
ice age when Man couldn't have been a factor?
2) How do we know the same natural process isn't
happening now?
Warmest Regards
Bon_0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Surfer
>I would like an answer to the following two questions I've been asking for
>several years:
>
>
>
>1) What caused the substantial global warming that melted off the last great
>ice age when Man couldn't have been a factor?
>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
<Start extract>
Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of
ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This
pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in
the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles,
the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as
the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical
orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).
The eccentricity cycle causes changes in insolation (incoming
sunlight). When springtime insolation increases in the southern
hemisphere, this coincides with rising temperatures in the south,
retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the southern
hemisphere (Shemesh 2002). As temperature rises, CO2 also rises but
lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003,
Stott 2007).
Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration
(Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_CO2_Vostok.gif
How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2? As the oceans warm,
the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the
oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact
mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully
understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing
(Toggweiler 1999).
The greenhouse effect - how increased CO2 causes temperature rise
When there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth absorbs more heat.
Shortwave radiation from the sun passes straight through our
atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth. The earth reemits it as
longwave (infrared) radiation which is partially absorbed by
atmospheric CO2. This is the greenhouse effect. CO2 lets energy in,
doesn't let as much get out.
CO2 warming explains how the relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch
cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age. It begins with the high
southern latitudes (eg - Antarctica) warming and releasing CO2 from
the oceans. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere, amplifying and
spreading the warming to northern latitudes (Cuffey 2001). This is why
warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern
hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that show
tropical temperatures lag southern warming by ~1000 years (Stott
2007).
Climate sensitivity - how CO2 amplifies temperature increase
Climate sensitivity is defined as how much global temperature increase
if we doubled CO2. Studies of past CO2 and temperature records have
helped quantify how sensitive our climate is to changes in CO2.
Temperature and various forcings (including CO2) over the past few
centuries shows a climate sensitivity between 1.5 to 6.2�C (Hegerl
2006). One study combines the results from various paleontological
studies to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5�C (Annan
2006). Basically, multiple studies covering many different periods of
earth's history confirm that when CO2 is doubled, global temperatures
go up around 3�C.
So what does the CO2 lag tell us? The behaviour of CO2 in the past
confirms the amplifying effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sharp
temperature rises in the past indicate how sensitive climate is to
change. Our past history shows how our climate is prone to "tipping
points" where warming can lead to positive feedbacks sparking a
warming effect.
>
>
>2) How do we know the same natural process isn't
> happening now?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Present_and_future_conditions
<Start extract>
Since orbital variations are predictable[10], if one has a model that
relates orbital variations to climate, it is possible to run such a
model forward to "predict" future climate.
<snip>
An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that,
"Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting
at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model
predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years
ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[11]
<End extract>
In the light of the above, the recently observed warming isn't caused
by the Milankovitch cycle.
So it must be caused by something else, most likely by increasing CO2.
jose el fontanero
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:41:21 +1100, "no ob" <l...@vvv.com> wrote:
> >I would like an answer to the following two questions I've been asking for
> >several years:
>
> >1) What caused the substantial global warming that melted off the last great
> >ice age when Man couldn't have been a factor?
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
>
> <Start extract>
>
> Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of
> ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This
> pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in
> the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles,
> the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as
> the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical
> orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).
>
> The eccentricity cycle causes changes in insolation (incoming
> sunlight). When springtime insolation increases in the southern
> hemisphere, this coincides with rising temperatures in the south,
> retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the southern
> hemisphere (Shemesh 2002). As temperature rises, CO2 also rises but
> lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003,
> Stott 2007).
>
> Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration
>
> <Start extract>
>
> Since orbital variations are predictable[10], if one has a model that
> relates orbital variations to climate, it is possible to run such a
> model forward to "predict" future climate.
>
> <snip>
>
> An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that,
> "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting
> at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model
> predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years
> ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[11]
>
> <End extract>
>
> In the light of the above, the recently observed warming isn't caused
> by the Milankovitch cycle.
>
> So it must be caused by something else, most likely by increasing CO2.
By your analysis, the oceans of the world must also not be absorbing
as much oxygen as they would at lower temperatures. Therefore, more
oxygen is being released to the atmosphere. Hence, oxygen must also
be a pollutant that we must be alarmed at. Thus, we should destroy
plant life like trees and other none edible plant forms to save
humankind.
jose el fontanero
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling
of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited
commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant
scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a
combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the
scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward
trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Mainstream
scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but
undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
I wager that most of the Climate hysterics were not even
born during the last global panic over the coming ice-age.
Claudius Denk
> On Dec 29, 8:41 pm, "no ob" <l...@vvv.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would like an answer to the following two questions I've been asking for
> > several years:
>
> > 1) What caused the substantial global warming that melted off the last great
> > ice age when Man couldn't have been a factor?
>
> > 2) How do we know the same natural process isn't
>
> > happening now?
>
> > Warmest Regards
>
> > Bon_0
>
> > "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
> > US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
> > worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
> > from natural variation."
>
> > Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
>
> Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling
> of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited
> commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant
> scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a
> combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the
> scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward
> trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Mainstream
> scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but
> undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.
Nevertheless there was a whole group of scientists (Including
Schneider, who is now one of the top AGW proponents) telling us that
the science was unequivocal, an ice age was impending.
What happened? Well, there is was no money in it. There was no
easily identifyable scapegoat, like the oil companies. So it didn't
win popular support.
There is just as much science underlying global cooling as there is
underlying AGW: zero.
Surfer
<josef...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>By your analysis, the oceans of the world must also not be absorbing
>as much oxygen as they would at lower temperatures.
>
Probably.
>
>Therefore, more oxygen is being released to the atmosphere.
>Hence, oxygen must also be a pollutant that we must be alarmed at.
>
Except,
1) Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas
2) Compared to the amount of oxygen normally present in the
atmosphere, 20.946% by volume,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition
the extra amount released from the oceans would be very small.
Surfer
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling
>> of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited
>> commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant
>> scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a
>> combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the
>> scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward
>> trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Mainstream
>> scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but
>> undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.
>
>Nevertheless there was a whole group of scientists (Including
>Schneider, who is now one of the top AGW proponents) telling us that
>the science was unequivocal, an ice age was impending.
>
>What happened? Well, there is was no money in it. There was no
>easily identifyable scapegoat, like the oil companies. So it didn't
>win popular support.
>
More importantly, it didn't win scientific support
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
<Start extract>
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling
of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited
commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant
scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a
combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the
scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward
trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Mainstream
scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but
undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]
<snip>
In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global
temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers
considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined
towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2]
The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on
climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a
consequent warming trend. (The actual increase in this period was
29%.)[3] Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse
gases in 1968.[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the
public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and
there was concern in the climatological community about carbon
dioxide's warming effects.[5] In response to such reports, the World
Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very
significant warming of global climate was probable.[6]
Currently there are some concerns about the possible cooling effects
of a slowdown or shutdown of thermohaline circulation, which might be
provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic
due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally
considered to be very low, and the IPCC notes, "even in models where
the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in
all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the
sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive."[7]
<End extract>
jose el fontanero
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:50:24 -0800 (PST), jose el fontanero
>
>
> >By your analysis, the oceans of the world must also not be absorbing
> >as much oxygen as they would at lower temperatures.
>
> Probably.
>
> >Therefore, more oxygen is being released to the atmosphere.
> >Hence, oxygen must also be a pollutant that we must be alarmed at.
>
> Except,
>
> 1) Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas
> 2) Compared to the amount of oxygen normally present in the
> atmosphere, 20.946% by volume,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition
>
> the extra amount released from the oceans would be very small.
Carbon dioxide on the other hand, is less than 0.04 percent by
volume in the atmosphere. Oxygen is a component of water
vapor. Water vapor is considered to be the main greenhouse
gas.
jose el fontanero
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:14:00 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
>
>
>
>
>
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling
> >> of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited
> >> commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant
> >> scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a
> >> combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the
> >> scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward
> >> trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Mainstream
> >> scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but
> >> undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.
>
> >Nevertheless there was a whole group of scientists (Including
> >Schneider, who is now one of the top AGW proponents) telling us that
> >the science was unequivocal, an ice age was impending.
>
> >What happened? Well, there is was no money in it. There was no
> >easily identifyable scapegoat, like the oil companies. So it didn't
> >win popular support.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The theory failed because greedy charlatans couldn't blame carbon
and sell their theories for vast sums of money.
Surfer
<alfb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Carbon dioxide on the other hand, is less than 0.04 percent by
>volume in the atmosphere. Oxygen is a component of water
>vapor. Water vapor is considered to be the main greenhouse
>gas.
>
Yes. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. But globally speaking,
the amount of water in the atmosphere is at saturation point. Any
human activities that emit water vapor only cause more water to
precipitate somewhere else (eg as rain, dew etc.). So human activities
are not directly causing the global greenhouse effect of water vapor
to increase.
In contrast the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is being steadily
increased by the burning of fossil fuel, thus causing its greenhouse
effect to increase.
However, if the oceans become say 1 degree warmer due to increased CO2
greenhouse effect, that will increase evaporation and increase the
amount of water in the air. So the greenhouse effect will be further
increased by that extra water vapor.
Some AGW skeptics argue that more water vapor will cause more clouds
that will reflect sunlight and compensate for increased CO2. But if
the atmosphere is also 1 degree warmer, the atmosphere will be able to
hold more water vapor without forming more clouds.
So we could expect a larger increase in temperature than would occur
from increased CO2 alone.
Surfer
<alfb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The theory failed because greedy charlatans couldn't blame carbon
>and sell their theories for vast sums of money.
>
Scientific theories arn't sold for vast sums of money. They are
available via scientific journals in libraries for free.
You can also read many papers via the internet.
Eg try
http://arxiv.org/
leona...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:13:58 -0800 (PST), jose el fontanero
>
>
> >Carbon dioxide on the other hand, is less than 0.04 percent by
> >volume in the atmosphere. Oxygen is a component of water
> >vapor. Water vapor is considered to be the main greenhouse
> >gas.
>
> Yes. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. But globally speaking,
> the amount of water in the atmosphere is at saturation point. Any
> human activities that emit water vapor only cause more water to
> precipitate somewhere else (eg as rain, dew etc.). So human activities
> are not directly causing the global greenhouse effect of water vapor
> to increase.
• Nonsense. That logic would be laughed at by
junior high students.
• ALL of the water vapour in the atmosphere comes
from the warm seas and wherever the air is cooler
than still waters. In the water is CO2 which is
encapsuled in the H2O molecules (sometimes
called carbonic acid gas) and is raised by
convection to where forms clouds.When the
warm clouds meet a cold front The vapour
condenses and becomes precip, which on
contact becomes fertilize.r
> In contrast the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is being steadily
> increased by the burning of fossil fuel, thus causing its greenhouse
> effect to increase.
• Total nonsense! CO2 has zero effect on the
climate. Neither does any other GHGas have
any effect.
> However, if the oceans become say 1 degree warmer due to increased CO2
> greenhouse effect, that will increase evaporation and increase the
> amount of water in the air. So the greenhouse effect will be further
> increased by that extra water vapor.
• More hogwash!!! Not worth a dime for a carload.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Peter Webb
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:mejtj5ddjfncg7o7l...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:13:58 -0800 (PST), jose el fontanero
> <alfb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Carbon dioxide on the other hand, is less than 0.04 percent by
>>volume in the atmosphere. Oxygen is a component of water
>>vapor. Water vapor is considered to be the main greenhouse
>>gas.
>>
>
> Yes. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. But globally speaking,
> the amount of water in the atmosphere is at saturation point.
Untrue. Saturation point is when the relative humidity reaches 100%. Its not
that right now here in Sydney, and most other places on the planet.
> Any
> human activities that emit water vapor only cause more water to
> precipitate somewhere else (eg as rain, dew etc.). So human activities
> are not directly causing the global greenhouse effect of water vapor
> to increase.
That's not what climate scientists think.
>
> In contrast the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is being steadily
> increased by the burning of fossil fuel, thus causing its greenhouse
> effect to increase.
>
"thus" ?
Didn't you just assume what you are supposed to be trying to prove?
> However, if the oceans become say 1 degree warmer due to increased CO2
> greenhouse effect, that will increase evaporation and increase the
> amount of water in the air. So the greenhouse effect will be further
> increased by that extra water vapor.
I thought you said:
a) The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is at saturation, and so
can't increase, and
b) The activities of humans are not causing increased water vapour to
accumulate in the air?
>
> Some AGW skeptics argue that more water vapor will cause more clouds
> that will reflect sunlight and compensate for increased CO2. But if
> the atmosphere is also 1 degree warmer, the atmosphere will be able to
> hold more water vapor without forming more clouds.
>
On the other hand, the common sense theory that more evaporation would lead
to more clouds thus reducing the earth's albedo is also quite plausible.
> So we could expect a larger increase in temperature than would occur
> from increased CO2 alone.
>
Or a decrease, if more clouds reduces the amount of sunshine the earth
receives.
>
>
Gee, so much we don't know about how the climate system works. Like for
example why the temperature appears to fluctuate so wildly in the absence of
anthropogenic CO2.
Peter Webb
Or, you could fund climate scientists who agree with AGW billions of dollars
to prove its a problem, which is what has happened.
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:mejtj5ddjfncg7o7l...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:13:58 -0800 (PST), jose el fontanero
> > <alfbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Carbon dioxide on the other hand, is less than 0.04 percent by
> >>volume in the atmosphere. Oxygen is a component of water
> >>vapor. Water vapor is considered to be the main greenhouse
> >>gas.
>
> > Yes. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas.
• Correct
>> But globally speaking,
> > the amount of water in the atmosphere is at saturation point.
• Nonsense! No water lasts in the atmosphere
more than a week.
>
> Untrue. Saturation point is when the relative humidity reaches 100%. Its not
> that right now here in Sydney, and most other places on the planet.
>
> > Any
> > human activities that emit water vapor only cause more water to
> > precipitate somewhere else (eg as rain, dew etc.). So human activities
> > are not directly causing the global greenhouse effect of water vapor
> > to increase.
• Another crock of nonsense.
>
> That's not what climate scientists think.
• Actually that is not what any intelligent
person thinks.
> > In contrast the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is being steadily
> > increased by the burning of fossil fuel, thus causing its greenhouse
> > effect to increase.
>
• The amount of increase of CO2 levels from the
1820 to 1950 average is a mere 50 ppm. Thus
even if was a factor thye difference is trivial.
However the greenhouse gasses have zero effect,
• However it should be noted, that paleologists
have found that every time the CO2 has exceeded
300ppm the interglacial period ended and
reglaciation began. My studies tell me that the
end of the current interglacial began about 2000
years ago and I expect the polar ice will start
creeping toward the Equator between 2050 and
2100
Surfer
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Yes. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. But globally speaking,
>> the amount of water in the atmosphere is at saturation point.
>
>Untrue. Saturation point is when the relative humidity reaches 100%. Its not
>that right now here in Sydney, and most other places on the planet.
>
I meant to imply that water that is put into the air must eventually
precipitate somewhere or other.
But after considering you comment, I realize it would be possible to
increase the amount of water vapor in the air in areas that are not
currently saturated.
>> Any
>> human activities that emit water vapor only cause more water to
>> precipitate somewhere else (eg as rain, dew etc.). So human activities
>> are not directly causing the global greenhouse effect of water vapor
>> to increase.
>
>That's not what climate scientists think.
>
Actually, now I think more about it, irrigation of desert areas would
allow water to evaporate and increase the water vapor greenhouse
effect in those areas. In such areas the extra greenhouse effect would
be smaller than the cooling caused by evaporation. However, the
evaporated water could release the extra heat elsewhere when it
precipitated.
This could be an unintended consequence of large scale irrigation.
>>
>> In contrast the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is being steadily
>> increased by the burning of fossil fuel, thus causing its greenhouse
>> effect to increase.
>>
>
>"thus" ?
>
I was referring to the CO2 greenhouse effect, which would increase if
more CO2 was present.
>
>Didn't you just assume what you are supposed to be trying to prove?
>
I assume the CO2 greenhouse effect is proven.
>
>> However, if the oceans become say 1 degree warmer due to increased CO2
>> greenhouse effect, that will increase evaporation and increase the
>> amount of water in the air. So the greenhouse effect will be further
>> increased by that extra water vapor.
>
>I thought you said:
>
>a) The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is at saturation, and so
>can't increase,
>
>and
>b) The activities of humans are not causing increased water vapour to
>accumulate in the air?
>
I did, but with your help realise that a) and b) aren't true.
>
>>
>> Some AGW skeptics argue that more water vapor will cause more clouds
>> that will reflect sunlight and compensate for increased CO2. But if
>> the atmosphere is also 1 degree warmer, the atmosphere will be able to
>> hold more water vapor without forming more clouds.
>>
>
>On the other hand, the common sense theory that more evaporation would lead
>to more clouds thus reducing the earth's albedo is also quite plausible.
>
Its plausible, but if the atmosphere is warmer, it will be able to
hold more water before clouds form.
>
>
>> So we could expect a larger increase in temperature than would occur
>> from increased CO2 alone.
>>
>
>Or a decrease, if more clouds reduces the amount of sunshine the earth
>receives.
>
>>
>>
>
>Gee, so much we don't know about how the climate system works. Like for
>example why the temperature appears to fluctuate so wildly in the absence of
>anthropogenic CO2.
>
That seems to be the case when this was written back in May, 2000.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
"....It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes
have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing,
ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean
circulation...."
<snip>
<but it also says>
"......Given all the new ice core data, what changes can we anticipate
for our climate? If CO2 has increased over the past 150 years as much
as it normally increases over thousands of years leading up to an
interglacial phase (about 80 ppmv), then we could expect as much as a
corresponding 10-12C increase in temperature. But if half the
historical temperature increases have been due to orbital forcing and
other factors, then we should expect an increase of "only" about 5-6C,
or 9-11F.
Most computer models don't predict either of these magnitudes of
temperature change for the new century. They typically cite evidence
indicating that overall global temperatures have not changed as much
as polar temperatures, where the ice cores were taken, and that
increases of only 2-3C should be anticipated. Unfortunately, new
evidence from high-elevation tropical ice cores indicates that this is
not really the case. The latest data show that the amplitude of
sub-polar temperature changes has been in the range of 8-12C, which is
not all that different from the 10-12C found at the poles.
Thus we seem to be headed for some very large climate changes.
Temperatures could increase rapidly, and then decrease just as
rapidly--as they have repeatedly over the past 420,000 years. Another
possibility is that there will be so much GTGs in the atmosphere that
they will actually override historical patterns of thermohaline
circulation and climate change. It's noteworthy in this context that
the current atmospheric methane level is about 230% of its
pre-industrial maximum (contrasted with CO2 being about 130% of its
pre-industrial maximum). For closer looks at the ice core data for
the 18,000 year, 200 year, and 50 year time frames, go to the next
page....."
That is quite thought provoking.
Tater Gumfries
> I would like an answer to the following two questions I've been asking for
> several years:
>
> 1) What caused the substantial global warming that melted off the last great
> ice age when Man couldn't have been a factor?
>
> 2) How do we know the same natural process isn't
>
> happening now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Tater
Tater Gumfries
wrote:
> Oxygen is a component of water
> vapor. Water vapor is considered to be the main greenhouse
> gas.
That has nothing to do with water vapor's greenhouse effect. Your
construction makes as much sense as insisting we should be able to
breathe water because it contains oxygen.
You really should learn some chemistry and physics before agruing
about chemistry and physics.
Tater
Tater Gumfries
wrote:
> • ALL of the water vapour in the atmosphere comes
> from the warm seas and wherever the air is cooler
> than still waters.
No, it does not. It comes from any body of water at any temperature.
> In the water is CO2 which is
> encapsuled in the H2O molecules
No, it is not. CO2 cannot be encapsulated in H2O molecules.
It is pretty obvious that you are repeating something you heard
without thinking, or making something up without thinking about it
carefully.
Tater