PeakOil is You
THE Greenland Thread (merged)
Re: Greenland Ice Core Data: Spooky
by PenultimateManStanding » Wed 12 Oct 2005, 06:55:08
Looks like our contribution of CO2 is more than minor. A CO2 reading of 370 is unprecedented by about 20%.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
Re: Greenland Ice Core Data: Spooky
by Aaron » Wed 12 Oct 2005, 07:08:14
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
Re: Greenland Ice Core Data: Spooky
by Antimatter » Wed 12 Oct 2005, 09:09:24
NASA climatologist James Hansen (do not mistake for Jay Hanson!) agrees with me on the ice age thing (ok ok...i agree with him 
)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his record (Figure 2) suggests that the present interglacial period (the Holocene), now about 12,000 years old, is already long of tooth. Absent humans, the Earth might "soon" (in thousands of years) be headed into its next ice age.
The next ice age will never come, however, unless humans desert the planet. As we shall see, the small forces that drove millennial climate changes are now overwhelmed by human forcings. A small fraction of the greenhouse gases that civilization emits is sufficient to avert global cooling. The problem is now the opposite: human forcings are driving the planet toward a warmer climate. Our best guide for how much the Earth's climate will change is provided by the record of how the Earth responded in the past to natural forcings.
)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his record (Figure 2) suggests that the present interglacial period (the Holocene), now about 12,000 years old, is already long of tooth. Absent humans, the Earth might "soon" (in thousands of years) be headed into its next ice age.
The next ice age will never come, however, unless humans desert the planet. As we shall see, the small forces that drove millennial climate changes are now overwhelmed by human forcings. A small fraction of the greenhouse gases that civilization emits is sufficient to avert global cooling. The problem is now the opposite: human forcings are driving the planet toward a warmer climate. Our best guide for how much the Earth's climate will change is provided by the record of how the Earth responded in the past to natural forcings.
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh2.html
Under a moderate emissions scenario we might get about 2 degrees C of warming, which doesn't worry me much when looking at the ice core data. We have already dropped about 1 degree since the peak of the current interglacial. Much better than an ice age.
"Production of useful work is limited by the laws of thermodynamics, but the production of useless work seems to be unlimited."
-
Antimatter - Tar Sands
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Tue 04 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Australia
Re: Greenland Ice Core Data: Spooky
by rockdoc123 » Wed 12 Oct 2005, 10:09:19
Well just for fun....here is an article from Newsweek April 28th, 1975 when the greatest minds in climate science were ruminating our apocalytic demise at the hands of a new ice age:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
As Bob Dylan coined...."the times they are a changin". I especially like the suggestion that we melt the Arctic Ice!!
-
rockdoc123 - Expert
- Posts: 7685
- Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Greenland Ice Core Data: Spooky
by frankthetank » Wed 12 Oct 2005, 10:14:22
I don't think the coal would save us in the event of another ice age outbreak. I'm guessing a mass migration towards the equator (southern hemisphere) would be in order.
I can't stand the winters up here (42N) the way they are now!
I think that trying to predict such an event is VERY unreliable. Just take a look @ weather models as they are right now. Using the 10 (240hr) GFS more often then not shows how bad forecasting tools are in the long range. TRying to predict something years in advance is ludicris.
I can't stand the winters up here (42N) the way they are now!
I think that trying to predict such an event is VERY unreliable. Just take a look @ weather models as they are right now. Using the 10 (240hr) GFS more often then not shows how bad forecasting tools are in the long range. TRying to predict something years in advance is ludicris.
-
frankthetank - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 6202
- Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Southwest WI
Re: Greenland Ice Core Data: Spooky
by PenultimateManStanding » Wed 12 Oct 2005, 13:04:21
CO2 levels appear to be an effect and not a cause.That half million year chart shows an overall regularity which points to astronomical causes (Milankovitch cycles). There is no reason to suppose that our additional releases of CO2 wouldn't have precisely the opposite effect that some believe. The swing back to cold could very well wind up being exacerbated as a result of the anomolous CO2 presence. If the mechanisms aren't worked out, then we don't really know. We have to know what causes the rapid climate changes before we can say what the effect of a 20% increase of CO2 means for the future.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
Re: Greenland Ice Core Data: Spooky
by Yossarian » Wed 12 Oct 2005, 15:06:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'C')O2 levels appear to be an effect and not a cause.That half million year chart shows an overall regularity which points to astronomical causes (Milankovitch cycles). There is no reason to suppose that our additional releases of CO2 wouldn't have precisely the opposite effect that some believe. The swing back to cold could very well wind up being exacerbated as a result of the anomolous CO2 presence. If the mechanisms aren't worked out, then we don't really know. We have to know what causes the rapid climate changes before we can say what the effect of a 20% increase of CO2 means for the future.
"Climate Crash" is a good read, unfortunately at this stage there is no certainty as to the triggers, only that the climate has 'rapidly flipped' in the past. People who play up the uncertainty are only fooling themselves. Would those same people, if told by their doctors to cut-out smoking, get some exercise and eat a better diet or you're at serious risk of a heartattack, counter with "Well, how severe will this said heartattack be and what will be the exact date and time that it will occur."
"Things fall apart, the center does not hold"
-
Yossarian - Peat
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Bergen Cty, NJ
Re: Greenland Ice Core Data: Spooky
by rockdoc123 » Wed 12 Oct 2005, 15:39:49
Hey penultimatemanstanding....how come when I post the same information as you did along with a host of references in regards to CO2 and past climate change on other threads I get personally attacked by the pro-global warming camp? 
Take a look at the Humans cause global warming thread that Grame had started awhile ago. No matter how much science and logic you feed these guys they really appear to be locked to a particular popular point of view.
Take a look at the Humans cause global warming thread that Grame had started awhile ago. No matter how much science and logic you feed these guys they really appear to be locked to a particular popular point of view.
-
rockdoc123 - Expert
- Posts: 7685
- Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Greenland Ice Core Data: Spooky
by lotrfan55345 » Wed 12 Oct 2005, 17:45:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('frankthetank', 'I') don't think the coal would save us in the event of another ice age outbreak. I'm guessing a mass migration towards the equator (southern hemisphere) would be in order.
I can't stand the winters up here (42N) the way they are now!
I think that trying to predict such an event is VERY unreliable. Just take a look @ weather models as they are right now. Using the 10 (240hr) GFS more often then not shows how bad forecasting tools are in the long range. TRying to predict something years in advance is ludicris.
I can't stand the winters up here (42N) the way they are now!
I think that trying to predict such an event is VERY unreliable. Just take a look @ weather models as they are right now. Using the 10 (240hr) GFS more often then not shows how bad forecasting tools are in the long range. TRying to predict something years in advance is ludicris.
I find UKMET more accurate for tropical weather, and NAM/GFS to be more accurate forecasting winter weather.
- lotrfan55345
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Minneapolis / Pittsburgh
