What's causing global warming?

[Pat Neuman]

What's causing global warming?

Here's what I think...

The age of mammals began 50-55 million years ago. The mammals evolved
during a slow period of cooling and stability, until about 2 million
years ago. Low CO2 brought on the ice ages, when climate fluctuated
wildly due to the less dominating low CO2 levels along with many other
perturbations, creating a highly variable climate.

Those other perturbations are irrelevant now that humans have pumped up
the atmosphere with enormous amounts of CO2 (fossil fuel emissions). We
are now at a point just waiting to see what happens next. It's like
we're in the eye of a hurricane but were spared the first half of the
storm.

The CO2 that's been dumped into the atmosphere by humans during the 20th
century is like having put 15 inches of rain in the headwaters of a river
basin yesterday. The travel time to begin observing the runoff at the
river point downstream is about 12 hours. The time to peak at the
downstream point is 24 hours. We are at the downstream point, just
noticing an increase in flow from the headwaters runoff, wondering how
high the river will get.

The rain in the headwaters didn't stop yesterday, the intensity of the
rainfall increased overnight, and continues to increase. If we could "be
the rain" do you think we should reduce the intensity?

Human emissions of CO2 have triggered the water vapor feedback mechanism
and other global warming feedbacks, thus anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emission have cause global warming. Can it be stopped?

I think we should reduce CO2 emissions.

Who is responsible for global warming.

Managers of U.S. federal and state agencies have not supported a public
stance on global warming. Their message to the media and the public has
been that "there is no global warming problem". This failure by
government and media to take a serious position on global warming has
been the reason that Americans have failed to take global warming
seriously. The world will suffer the consequences.

THE WORLD IS IN CRISIS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING!

Conservation-aimed "financial incentives" at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchi...ive/message/229 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229)

Links to climate articles and data are at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchi...ive/message/438 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/438)

Link to Graph of CO2, plus global warming discussion group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

Link to Global Air-Land Temperature Graph and ClimateArchive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/

Pat
npat1@juno.com
Minnesota

[abyssalroamer]

Your points and analyses are mostly valid, but the fact is, we are pretty much in the dark how the various cycles in the earth system work together. The application of nonlinear geophysics has helped us make great strides in the past few years. In 2002, the American Geophysical Union focus group on global environment change (of which I was a member) sought to create a new position paper to reflect the Union's concerns. The task was complicated because we had to present an unbiased assessment of the science, from ice cores to meteorology to solar activity--all aspects that influence the earth system--to the Government (the President and Congress) in a way that did not assess "blame". We tried not to include the human factor as an understood cog in the system, but as it turned out there were compelling correlations. The new postion paper was presented at the December, 2003 meeting in San Francisco. Interestingly enough, the message boards on AOL were mostly unkind, centering on "departures from real science". The problem comes down to the ability and willingness of all people, not just scientists, to take an active role in understanding what goes into an assessmnet, and not merely advocating change and remediation. Universities and colleges across the world are doing little to turn out people with insight. In October of last year, however, Stanford University introduced a program wherein all undergrads will have to take a core program in earth systems, either as an earth-science or as a biological centered sequence. All the Schools in the university, Law, Business, Medicine, Humanities, Earth Sciences, Education, SLAC are involved. It has already yielded some interesting results. More of that is needed.

[Pat Neuman]

abyssalroamer,

On 12/22/2003 I posted the AGU statement to my public discussion group at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

If possible, please consider joining the group from the above URL.

> The problem comes down to the ability and willingness of all people, not just scientists, to take an active role in understanding what goes into an assessmnet, and not merely advocating change and remediation.<

I'll take more time to think on this, they hope to reply.

Pat

[Pat Neuman]

In looking at this and other work by Dr. Mclean in 1990 there seems little doubt that we knew enough to take significant action with 15 or more years ago.

Pat


Senate testimony, "Climatic warming and mammalian evolution/extinction s,"(Dr. Dewey McLean, 1988)

Date : Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:09:38 GMT


From the following statement by Dr. Dewey M. McLean, a member of this
discussion group on Paleontology and Climate:

"In conclusion, today we live in a hot world in which many species already
experience reproductive problems in high environmental temperatures. Any
significant greenhouse warming would increase reproductive problems that would
likely track, and expand in scale with, the warming. The middle latitudes where
we live could be hit especially hard."(Mclean, 1988).

- - -
Statement of Dr. Dewey M. McLean, Department of
Geological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

United States Senate One Hundredth Congress
The Global Environmental Protection Act of 1988

"Dr. McLean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been asked to discuss the
effects of climatic warming on mammalian adaptation and extinctions.

For the past 2 million years, mammals have spent most of their time in cool, ice
age conditions, and relatively short periods in warm times known as
interglacials. Today, we live in a relatively hot interglacial world. There is
much evidence that mammals do not function well, reproductively, in modern high
environmental temperatures, and this is prior to the onset or any potential
greenhouse warming. I will cite some examples taken from my written testimony.

In Arizona and Missouri, cattle conception rates in the cool months are about 50
percent, but in the hot months drop to about 20 percent, or lower. For Florida
cattle, as environmental temperatures increase from about 70 to 95 degrees
Fahrenheit, conception rates drop from 40 to about 30 percent. And humans are
not immune from the effects of high environmental temperatures. In much of the
world there is a drop in human conception rates in hot summer months.

How it is that high environmental temperatures affect conception rates had been
identified by dairy science reproductive physiologists. It involves females.
High temperatures cause overheating in female mammals. As a defense against
overheating, the animals's blood flow is shunted to its periphery to carry its
body heat to the environment. This reduces the flow of blood to the uterus
which creates a problem for a developing embryo. Uterine blood flow is a
developing embryo's source of oxygen, water, and nutrients, and hormones, and
also serves to carry metabolic heat away from the embryo.

An embryo must be maintained to a nearly constant, optimum, temperature.
However, high environmental temperatures cause the female's internal temperature
to rise. A rise of about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of the female's internal
temperature will kill most embryos. Lower temperatures can cause damage such as
dwarfing, skeletal abnormalities, and fetal malformations, et cetera.

"The environmental temperatures that cause overheating to begin are about
85 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and lower humidity. Here is the problem that we
face in any greenhouse warming. Because embryos require a nearly constant
temperature, and because high environmental temperatures cause females to
overheat, rapid greenhouse warming could impose severe adaptation problems for
many mammals.

I spend much time integrating the past with the present. By doing so, I believe
I now have enough information to predict how rapid climatic warming would affect
modern mammals. We could expect reduction in population numbers caused by
embryo failure, in which large mammals would be more affected than would small
ones. There would be wide scale dwarfing, and skeleton abnormalities, and
middle and high latitude mammals would suffer more than would tropical mammals.
This is because of the polar amplification of warming, and also because in the
middle latitudes the cool winter months are the prime breeding season, and
greenhouse warming causes greater wintertime than summertime warming. This
would reduce the prime breeding season at the higher latitudes.

These predictions work for the last time the Earth heated up - about 11,000
years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age. At that time, there were global
mammalian extinctions in which large mammals were most affected. Dwarfing
occurred in some genera. The extinctions were most severe in high and middle
latitudes. North America, as an example, was hit with especial severity, losing
about 70 percent of its large mammals.

In conclusion, today we live in a hot world in which many species already
experience reproductive problems in high environmental temperatures. Any
significant greenhouse warming would increase reproductive problems that would
likely track, and expand in scale with, the warming. The middle latitudes where
we live could be hit especially hard.

Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Dr. McLean.

- - -
Joint Hearings before the Subcommittee on Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Substances
and the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection of the Committee on Environment
and Public Works Bill entitled:
The Global Environmental Protection Act of 1988 September 14 and 16, 1988

Pat

--- In Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com,

"Dewey M. McLean" wrote:

> Dear Tim, thanks again for the alert. To read
> the paper, please access my website at

http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclea...tion/index.html (http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html)

> and then scroll down to the section titled
> "Lessons from the Past"
> which contains several of my papers
> on climate change and extinctions:
>
> (1) "Embryogenesis dysfunction in the
> Pleistocene/Holocene transition
> mammalian extinctions, dwarfing,
> and skeletal abnormality,"
>
> (2) "A climate change mammalian population
> collapse mechanism,"
>
> (3) "Greenhouse warming and mammals: analogues
> and consequences," and
>
> (4) My Senate Hearing testimony, "Climatic
> warming and mammalian evolution/extinctions,"
> that was published in The Global
> Environmental Protection Act of 1988.
>
> For now, I cite these papers for information
> only. I'm so busy trying to meet a deadline
> that I cannot participate in any additional
> listserv activity for at least the next
> several weeks.
>
> Cordially,
> Dewey McLean


THE WORLD IS IN CRISIS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING!
Conservation-aimed "financial incentives"
are needed to ConserveNow, please see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchi...ive/message/229 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229)

Links to climate articles and data are at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchi...ive/message/438 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/438)
Link to Atmospheric CO2 concentration Graph:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)
Link to Global Air-Land Temperature Graph:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/

[Tinaa]

Earth has gone through many warm phases and ice ages. I do not believe humans are the main problem. Is not water vapor the most abundant greenhouse gas? In fact, according to the ice samples taken from Antartica, aren't we due an ice age soon (relatively speaking)?

[Pedantic]

I am a layman and a skeptic. I hear shrill voices scream "the sky is falling!" yet I see absolutely no evidence for it. Every report I read from reputable sources fudge the judgment. "Yes, ahem, it looks like there may a one tenth of one tenth of a degree of warming, but by all that's holy, that could be catastrophic! We must do something!" I recently read a report on ice sheet disintegration in Antarctica and the closest the authors would come to declaring it the result of global warming was, I believe, "change in warm current routes."

If the environmental community wants to convince me that we have a problem that is more than just our world cycling through warm times (i.e. technology is causing massive global warming), then it will have to lose its shrill tone, leave off the moral invective, and give me better solutions than "give up your comfort." That comfort does more than help me to sleep at night; it saves an abundance of lives through an abundance of solutions. It also provides for a society that has the leisure time to allow such concerns as wildlife habitat preservation to be placed on an agenda.

I enjoyed the calm, dispassionate tone used by abyssalroamer. He/she will convince me that there is a problem more quickly that Mr/Ms. Neuman, who cites an author from 1990 who in turn makes the absurd claim that global warming is most definitely real at a time when only the most jaded of voices said *for certain* that global warming is an undisputed fact.

Finally, even if global warming is a fact, one thing of which I am certain, the science behind it will be extremely complex; we will find that a whole mixture of causes go into heating up the atmosphere (not just CO2, and not even "mostly" CO2). What's more, we will find that wide-spectrum technology will be needed to fix the alleged problem. Though I have no argument with making technology environmentally friendly (it only makes sense to conserve energy and recycle wealth rather than throw it away), I will refuse to listen to hysteria and invective when making decisions.

Environmentalists need to grow up.

[Fraser]

The scientific community largely agrees that there is a significant rise in temperature over the last 100 years, and accelerating over the last 30 years. Glaciers around the world are shrinking, arctic ice levels are decreasing, and desertification is on the increase. I don't think you'll find many scientists who argue about the data.

Scientists do, however, argue over the ramifications and long-term consequences of this temperature increase. Maybe it'll create a runaway greenhouse effect. Maybe it'll cause some strange inversion that actually slips us into an ice age. Different scientists have different theories about what the consequenses of this increase in temperature will cause.

But there's no question it's a gamble. What level of odds we're playing with is a matter of opinion. Do you own insurance to protect the contents of your house? What is the chance your house is going to catch fire and everything would be destroyed? Pretty slim. And yet, you own insurance because you know it can happen.

The human race is dumping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at ever increasing levels. And the consequences could be anything from nothing to utter catastophy. I think the least we can do is restrict our emissions until scientists better understand what kind of world we're creating. As consumers, each one of us has a choice to err on the side of caution when we make purchasing decisions.

Personally, I'm willing to accept a little sacrifice in order to give the scientists time to understand if I'm making my childrens' world unlivable.

[GOURDHEAD]

It seems to be widely accepted that some globle warming has ocurred over the past 100 years; however it does not seem to be radically different from that which has occurred over similar intervals in the past. It seems logical that the huge amounts of CO2 we have dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years has contibuted to global warming. However, I still think we don't know which way to run nor how fast. I have read strong evidence favoring 11 to 15 thousand year recurrences of ice maxima. Since the last one occurred 11000 years ago and there is evidence that the ice accumulates rapidly we can not lightly dismiss the hazards that an ice age brings.

I've also read/heard that the oceans are warmer (in places) but the atmosphere is actually cooler. I am skeptical about most reports on global temperature changes, especially those stretching over 100 years. The earth is not sufficiently instrumented now much less 100 years ago to give such data the needed credibility. Only in recent years have we been able to measure either temperature or CO2 concentrations. We don't know how fast the oceans, plants, and rocks incorporate the CO2 nor how earth's albedo is affected. In summary, we don't know enough (not enough is known) to take any action other than caution. We need heaping helpings of that.

[kashi]

In the middle ages there was a "warm period" where average temperatures in Europe increased by around 8 degrees (and maybe elsewhere too). It allowed people to grow grapes in Englang and the Vikings to live in Greenland. I think it lasted over a hundred years then temperatures suddenly came back down and the Vikings were wiped out. It is entirely possible that we could now be in the same situation, but as Fraser said, it is a gamble as we're not really sure why global warming has occurred. Personally I think ignoring it isn't worth the risk.

[Pat Neuman]

The change in the rate of global warming during the mid-late 1970s can be seen by viewing Table 1, below, which shows Global Land air Temperature (GLT).

GLT in 2003 was 0.83°C (1.50°F) above the
1880-2003 average of 8.5°C (47.3°F).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Table 1: Change in 10 year average GLT in degrees F

Year : GLT: 10yrAvg
1880 46.90
1881 47.02
1882 47.11
1883 46.66
1884 46.41
1885 46.67
1886 46.87
1887 46.81
1888 46.66
Annual GLT: 10yrAvg: 10yrChg: Times 100
1889 47.28 46.84 : . . . .
1890 47.06 46.85 : +.01 ... + 1
1891 46.78 46.83 : -.02 ... - 2
1892 46.62 46.78 : -.05 ... - 5
1893 46.43 46.76 : -.02 ... - 2
1894 46.98 46.82 : +.06 ... + 6
1895 46.81 46.83 : +.01 ... + 1
1896 47.03 46.85 : +.02 ... + 2
1897 47.21 46.89 : +.04 ... + 4
1898 47.01 46.92 : +.03 ... + 3
1899 47.13 46.91 : -.01 ... - 1
1900 47.32 46.93 : +.02 ... + 2
1901 47.31 46.99 : +.06 ... + 6
1902 46.91 47.01 : +.02 ... + 2
1903 46.81 47.05 : +.04 ... + 4
1904 46.59 47.01 : -.04 ... + 4
1905 46.88 47.02 : +.01 ... + 1
1906 47.22 47.04 : +.02 ... + 2
1907 46.41 46.96 : -.08 ... - 8
1908 46.67 46.93 : -.03 ... - 3
1909 46.77 46.89 : -.04 ... - 4
1910 46.99 46.86 : -.03 ... - 3
1911 46.88 46.81 : -.05 ... - 5
1912 46.77 46.80 : -.01 ... - 1
1913 47.05 46.82 : +.02 ... + 2
1914 47.49 46.91 : +.09 ... + 9
1915 47.49 46.97 : +.06 ... + 6
1916 46.92 46.94 : -.03 ... - 3
1917 46.34 46.94 : 0.00 ..... 0
1918 46.86 46.96 : +.02 ... + 2
1919 47.05 46.99 : +.03 ... + 3
1920 47.07 46.99 : 0.00 ..... 0
1921 47.50 47.05 : +.06 ... + 6
1922 47.16 47.09 : +.04 ... + 4
1923 47.15 47.10 : +.01 ... + 1
1924 47.06 47.06 : -.04 ... - 4
1925 47.29 47.04 : -.02 ... - 2
1926 47.53 47.10 : +.06 ... + 6
1927 47.26 47.19 : +.09 ... + 9
1928 47.38 47.24 : +.05 ... + 5
1929 46.86 47.22 : +.02 ... + 2
1930 47.50 47.27 : +.05 ... + 5
1931 47.57 47.27 : 0.00 ..... 0
1932 47.48 47.31 : +.04 ... + 4
1933 47.07 47.30 : -.01 ... - 1
1934 47.60 47.35 : +.05 ... + 5
1935 47.31 47.35 : 0.00 ..... 0
1936 47.39 47.34 : -.01 ... - 1
1937 47.59 47.37 : +.03 ... + 3
1938 47.87 47.42 : +.05 ... + 5
1939 47.64 47.50 : +.08 ... + 8
1940 47.52 47.50 : 0.00 ..... 0
1941 47.56 47.50 : 0.00 ..... 0
1942 47.49 47.50 : 0.00 ..... 0
1943 47.54 47.55 : +.05 ... + 5
1944 47.69 47.56 : +.01 ... + 1
1945 47.32 47.56 : 0.00 ..... 0
1946 47.48 47.57 : +.01 ... + 1
1947 47.56 47.57 : 0.00 ..... 0
1948 47.56 47.54 : -.03 ... - 3
1949 47.40 47.51 : -.03 ... - 3
1950 47.04 47.46 : -.05 ... - 5
1951 47.39 47.45 : -.01 ... - 1
1952 47.44 47.44 : -.01 ... - 1
1953 47.75 47.46 : +.02 ... + 2
1954 47.22 47.42 : -.04 ... - 4
1955 47.22 47.41 : -.01 ... - 1
1956 46.69 47.33 : -.08 ... - 8
1957 47.41 47.31 : -.02 ... - 2
1958 47.68 47.32 : +.01 ... + 1
1959 47.51 47.34 : +.02 ... + 2
1960 47.37 47.37 : +.03 ... + 3
1961 47.58 47.39 : +.02 ... + 2
1962 47.55 47.40 : +.01 ... + 1
1963 47.56 47.38 : -.02 ... - 2
1964 46.97 47.35 : -.03 ... - 3
1965 47.11 47.34 : -.01 ... - 1
1966 47.32 47.41 : +.07 ... + 7
1967 47.28 47.39 : -.02 ... - 2
1968 47.11 47.34 : -.05 ... - 5
1969 47.31 47.32 : -.02 ... - 2
1970 47.41 47.32 : 0.00 ..... 0
1971 47.15 47.28 : -.04 ... - 4
1972 47.08 47.23 : -.05 ... - 5
1973 47.79 47.25 : +.02 ... + 2
1974 47.02 47.26 : +.01 ... + 1
1975 47.41 47.29 : +.03 ... + 3
1976 46.84 47.24 : -.05 ... - 5
1977 47.71 47.28 : +.04 ... + 4
1978 47.43 47.32 : +.04 ... + 4
1979 47.66 47.35 : +.03 ... + 3
1980 47.75 47.38 : +.03 ... + 3
1981 48.13 47.48 : +.10 ... +10
1982 47.53 47.53 : +.05 ... + 5
1983 48.15 47.56 : +.03 ... + 3
1984 47.43 47.60 : +.04 ... + 4
1985 47.49 47.61 : +.01 ... + 1
1986 47.77 47.70 : +.11 ... +11
1987 48.09 47.74 : +.04 ... + 4
1988 48.24 47.82 : +.08 ... + 8
1989 48.03 47.86 : +.04 ... + 4
1990 48.54 47.94 : +.08 ... + 8
1991 48.29 47.96 : +.02 ... + 2
1992 47.82 47.98 : +.02 ... + 2
1993 47.91 47.96 : -.02 ... - 2
1994 48.35 48.05 : +.09 ... + 9
1995 48.61 48.16 : +.11 ... +11
1996 48.03 48.19 : +.03 ... + 3
1997 48.51 48.23 : +.04 ... + 4
1998 49.15 48.32 : +.09 ... + 9
1999 48.69 48.39 : +.07 ... + 7
2000 48.44 48.38 : -.01 ... - 1
2001 48.82 48.43 : +.05 ... + 5
2002 49.03 48.55 : +.12 ... +12
2003 48.80 48.64 : +.09 ...+ 9 #

# 48.64 -48.55
# 10 yr avg (1994-2003) minus 10 yr avg (1993-2002)

* Chg in 10 yr avg ending 2003 = 0.09 per year
* Chg in 10 yr avg ending 2003 = 0.90 per 10 yr [Chg in 10 yr avg x10]
* Chg in 10 yr avg ending 2003 = 09.0 per 100 yr [Chg in 10 yr avg x100]

* Invalid to use these Chg values for prediction or extrapolation into
future.

2003 GLT in degrees Fahrenheit (F)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
47.30 F - 1880-2003 Long-Term Land Mean
+1.50 F - anomaly land for 2003 NOAA NCDC
48.80 F - Global Land Temperature ( GLT for 2003)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The purpose of the 10 yr table (above) and the graph of GLT at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/ is to track the
acceleration in global warming.

Note that the sum of the changes (5, 12, 9) for the last three years(2001-2003)
is the highest sum of annual changes in 10 yr moving averages for 3 consecutive years in 124 years of record (1880-2003), indicating that global warming is accelerating.

To see what is causing the rapid increase in global warming
since the 1970s, check out the CO2 hockey stick at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center has accounted for urban heat island (UHI) in deriving their globally averaged annual land air temperature data, which was used for Table 1 and the figure of GLT (1880-2003) available on the ClimateArchive homepage.

Pat

[GOURDHEAD]

Pat Neuman: :unsure:

Fom 1880 to say about 1960, from how many places on the earth (land, sea, air, latitude, longitude, altitude) were temperature and CO2 samples taken at what intervals in time? What is the credibility and accuracy of the instruments and technicians involved?

I read in some photovoltaic cell literature that the wattss per square meter available at earth's distance from the sun is ~1300 and saw a climatology presentation where a value between 300 and 400 watts per square meter were used. What is the most recent determination of this value and its variability? How has it varied since 1860? When did the credibility of such data rise to a scientifically acceptable level? :unsure:

[Pat Neuman]

GOURDHEAD asked:

> Fom 1880 to say about 1960, from how many places on the
> earth (land, sea, air, latitude, longitude, altitude) were temperature
> and CO2 samples taken at what intervals in time?

There are hundreds of NOAA National Weather Service Climate Stations in the U.S.
with daily temperaure records from the 1890s to current.

Global data and links at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...obal.html#Gtemp (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/ann/global.html#Gtemp)

Outline for Climate Articles and Data LINKS to reports by Pat Neuman
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...ate/message/717 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/message/717)

NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) website, at:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/faq

I don't have the information on watts per square meter that you asked about.

Pat

[Pat Neuman]

Tinaa Posted on Jan 21 2004, 10:45 PM
Earth has gone through many warm phases and ice ages. I do not believe humans are the main problem. Is not water vapor the most abundant greenhouse gas? In fact, according to the ice samples taken from Antartica, aren't we due an ice age soon (relatively speaking)?

Tinaa,

Yes, water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas... and also the most powerful greenhouse gas. Human emissions of CO2 have triggered the water vapor feedback mechanism and other global warming feedbacks, thus anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have cause global warming.

In my 2003 reports (link provided in my previous post here), I have shown plots of increasing winter dewpoints (water vapor...humidity) for three stations in the Upper Midwest, and tables showing average annual dewpoints for 1998-2002 were 1-3 degrees F higher than for the period from 1948-1997 at 43 stations in the Midwest, Great Lakes States, and Great Plains.

Pat

[Pat Neuman]

Pedantic wrote:

Finally, even if global warming is a fact, one thing of which I am certain, the science behind it will be extremely complex; we will find that a whole mixture of causes go into heating up the atmosphere (not just CO2, and not even "mostly" CO2). ...

Pedantic,

The science behind global warming is not extremely complex when greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are high enough to dominates all other elements that can influence climate only when the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are low (like from the Pliestocene until 1900).

CO2 was high from 80 million years ago (mya) to 250 mya, when shallow seas were over North America from Texas to Alaska. CO2 decreased from 80 mya to 60 mya, then rose and peaked at 55 mya, coinciding with the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) around 55 mya. Evidence from vegetation fish fossils prove that a subtropical climate existed in the area the is currently southwest Wyoming and northeast Utah, around 50 mya.

The global climate from the Pliestocene to 1900 is not relevant to the global climate for Earth's future (for millions of years ahead).

Calling people with great concerns about the future global environment extremists etc as you did in your post ... you can fill in the rest.

Pat

[Pat Neuman]

fraser wrote:
...
Scientists do, however, argue over the ramifications and long-term consequences of this temperature increase. Maybe it'll create a runaway greenhouse effect. Maybe it'll cause some strange inversion that actually slips us into an ice age. Different scientists have different theories about what the consequenses of this increase in temperature will cause. ...

fraser,

I have not seen any studies that indicate scientists are serious about Earth slipping into an ice age. That is impossible with present and future high concentrations of greenhouse gases. The global climate is warming much to rapidly to allow an ice age to develop from shifts or stoppage of ocean currents. Some areas may experience temporary cooling due to changes in ocean currents, but the total effects from global warming feedbacks triggered by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will be minimal.

I agree with the other statements in your post.

Pat

[Pat Neuman]

Kashi wrote:
In the middle ages there was a "warm period" where average temperatures in Europe increased by around 8 degrees (and maybe elsewhere too). It allowed people to grow grapes in Englang and the Vikings to live in Greenland. I think it lasted over a hundred years then temperatures suddenly came back down and the Vikings were wiped out. It is entirely possible that we could now be in the same situation, but as Fraser said, it is a gamble as we're not really sure why global warming has occurred. Personally I think ignoring it isn't worth the risk.


Kashi,

There are different views about whether or not the mideval warm period was global or regional. I don't think it matters anymore... not with the high levels of
CO2 already, and likely to be much higher with additional accumulation of greenhouse gases due to human activity and global warming feedbacks. I think ignoring the risk is destructive to the quality of life that our young people will have later in their lives. I also think that it is critical that this message gets out so that young people can consider the future before making their decisions on having children, and how many. I have two young adult daughters. I asked them to consider what kind of life their yet to be conceived baby would have. Fortunately I don't think either is seriously considering that at this point anyway, but who knows. Regardless, I think government offices tasked with responsibility in public safety, elected official, parents, and many others are to be held accountable for getting the message out about global warming, food, water and fuel shortages that are coming in the years ahead. I wish that I was an alarmist type of person but I am not. I am a hydrologist and native landscape worker. My background is civil engineering and water resources management.

Pat

[JESMKS]

Prior to the Ice Age, some two to three million years ago, the climate was warmer than it is today and sea level was some 100 feet higher than it is today. Remnants of old wave-cut benches are still visible at places up and down our Pacific Coast. During the ice Age, which might just as well be called the Volcanoe Age, volcanoes became active in many parts of the world, but especially around the Pacific Rim. In Washington, where I live, Mount Baker, Glacier Peak, Rainier, Adams and St Helens were all very active. In Oregon, Mount Hood, Jefferson, Washington, Three Sisters, Thielson, Mazama and Newberry were also active. Volcanic activity was also occurring in other volcanoes around the Pacific Rim along with volcanoes in Indonesia, Italy and Turkey. This volcanic activity created a World-Wide atmosphere of ash laden clouds. The particulate matter in these clouds resulted in natural cloud seeding and a World-Wide increase in precipitation. This precipitation created large lakes in the basins of Central Oregon and Nevada, and a very large lake in Utah (Lake Bonneville) where the Great Salt Lake is a mere remnant. In higher latitudes, the precipitation came in the form of snow. The snow in Canada

[JESMKS]

Global Warming
I guess I'm having communication problems like Spirit. I'll try to complete my story:
The snow in Canada built up to the extent that large tongues of ice moved south into Puget Sound and into the Great Lakes area of Central United States. Some similar masses developed in Europe. This World-Wide accumulation of ice resulted in a substantial lowering of sea level.
With the waning of volcanic activity, the ice masses began to melt and global warming began. Ice covered areas, which had reflected solar energy back into space, decreased in size and more solar energy (heat) reached the earth. This increase in solar energy reaching the earth also contributed to global warming. The ash that was trapped in the glaciers blew south and accumulated as the Palouse soil of Eastern Washington and in the wide-spread loess depositits of our Central States. The earth is still in the process of recovering from the Ice Age. Ice Age generated glaciers are still melting in Greenland and Antarticia, and sea level is slowly rising. The climatic effect of the 1815 volcanic activity of Mopunt Tambora in Indonesia, which impacted the weather in the entire Northern Hemisphere, is described in the July 2002 edition of the Smithsonian Magazine. This article describes the climatic effect of just one volcanoe.
The earth is slowly warming and without another period of widespread volcanic activity, will eventially return to it's pre Ice Age condition, having a warmer climate and a higher sea level.
When I was a boy in the Pacific Northwest, some seventyfive plus years ago, houses were heated with wood stoves or saw dust burners. Every sawmill, which were numerous, had wig wam burners to dispose of wood wastes. Garbage dumps were always burning. Steam engines and steam locomotives were numerous. These sources of smoke emissions put large amounts of particulate matter in the atmosphere, particulary in winter months. These smoke emissions resulted in cloud seeding that produced larger and more extensive snow packs and increased solar reflection. man may now be contributing to the rate of global warming, not only by the release of greenhouse gases but by the reduction of particulate emissions. Maybe we should develope air bourne cloud seeding to offset the effect of clean air.
Jack

[GOURDHEAD]

Pat Neuman stated:
There are hundreds of NOAA National Weather Service Climate Stations in the U.S.
with daily temperaure records from the 1890s to current.

I am surprised to learn that NOAA had weather stations in operation as far back as 1890. Could your hyper-zealotry be showing? Did you forget about describing the data points or would that rain on your parade?

This subject and its consequences are much much too important to wax hyperbolic. The rational part of your argument is very important and should not be discredited with unfounded claims.

If a person dying of thirst begs for water, don't attempt to quench the thirst from a firehose under full pressure with muddy water.

[damienpaul]

All I know is that my contacts in Micronesia, bangladesh and Kiribati have already started to be affected by other effects of global warming. Sea level rises cause incursions of salt water into previously arable land. So it is clear that it has begun - interestingly, these worst/first affected nations contribute the least to emissions.

[Pedantic]

[QUOTE=Pat Neuman,Jan 22 2004, 07:01 PM]
The science behind global warming is not extremely complex when greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are high enough to dominates all other elements that can influence climate only when the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are low (like from the Pliestocene until 1900).

Pat:

You have just confirmed my greatest fear; your myopic vision about issues you hold dear. If you believe any process involved in an ecosystem (especially a macrosystem such as atmospheric heating and circulation) is simple then you had better go take a reality check.


>The global climate from the Pliestocene to 1900 is not relevant to the global climate for Earth's future (for millions of years ahead).

I'm not even sure why you brought this up, though I would disagree with you, remembering the adage about historic ignorance and repeatable offenses, et al. A more telling argument would be one that challenged the interpretation or accuracy of the information. But to simply dismiss the information with a rhetorical wave, well, sure fits the pattern, doesn't it?

>Calling people with great concerns about the future global environment extremists >etc as you did in your post ... you can fill in the rest.

I called you hysterical because you showed all the landmarks of such behavior: citing cult scientists, speaking in shrill, armageddeon-like languages, and figuratively waving your hands when facts wouldn't do. Even if you do not remember the general understanding of global warming circa 1990, I do. Even the liberal bastion NPR was reporting that scientists found no definitive proof that the world was getting warmer up until the early '90s, yet you cite one scientist as if he were reporting Revealed Truth.

Like I said in my first post (though not in so many words), such "whip-em-up-until-they-panic" behavior doesn't fool anyone anymore, and should be abandoned for a much more reasoned approach.

Even persons who are interested in supporting your position, only at a much lower level of intensity is the target of your ire, if your posts are any indication...

>you can fill in the rest.

You, too, can fill in the rest.

Having said all that I meant to say, you can rest assured that I will likely not grace this conversation again.

[Tinaa]

So, JESMKS, are you saying that the cleaner air we enjoy now, maybe causing more global warming? After reading your post, I find it makes perfect sense. How do the particulate emmissions differ from the greenhouse gases in their atmospheric effects?

[damienpaul]

I guess they can potentially 'block' some of the incoming sunlight. Sort of like a nuclear winter in miniature :blink:

[JESMKS]

Hi
Check out cloud seeding. It's been used in Spain and Colorado to increase precipitation. There, they have used silver iodide. The individual particle forms the nucleous on which water vapor in the atmosphere attaches itself as water and when it reaches a certain size, falls to earth as either rain or snow. I don't know the mechanism by which green-house gases in the atmosphere prevent heat on earth from exiting into space
Jack

[damienpaul]

have you any specific website links that have some good information JESMSK? This sounds like somthing that really needs to be done over much of Australia.

[Bluewolf027]

Considering that where I live it currently is -29 degrees celcius (feels like -35 with the windchill) I am still waiting for this global warming....maybe someone could just shift the earth on its axis a bit so I could be nearer to the equator :P .
At any rate Im hibernating for the weekend 15cm's snow in the last two days and its not expected to stop for 4 or 5 more....global warming??? I think I need some of that :lol:

[damienpaul]

Well, where I live, it has been 40 degrees celsius (about 108 F) plus for the past week - with thunderstorms - something is not right as we are experience hot tropical environmental conditions in the middle of the desert!!!

Just so everyone knows, Alice Springs is 600km from Uluru (Ayers Rock), and between 1500 km - 2500 km from ALL of the capital cities in Australia - right in the middle!

[Bluewolf027]

On a serious note the weather is strange here sometimes too. It was raining last week which is very strange in Northern Alberta Canada in the middle of January. It effectively made a total mess of the roads going from around 0 with rain to - 20 overnight.

It is possible that the sometimes weird weather patterns do have something to do with global warming. For the past few years we have been setting record temperatures on both ends of the scale summers are hotter, winters are colder. This might not have anything to do with global warming however as it seems that strange swings in average temperature are normal in Canada.

http://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n32c1.htm

[damienpaul]

One indicator we have here in Alice Springs is the frequency at which the Todd River flows. Just a bit of background, the Todd River is a totally inland river and is usually dry for 99% of the yyear - historical records have it flowing about once every 2-3 years and flooding every 10 years... however in the past ten years it has flooded twice and flowed a staggering 37 times.

Also the length of time for water to be retained in the river has changed - usually up to a week for a normal flow and up to a fortnight for a flood, that too has changed, the flows are shorter and far more erratic.

Wind is usually only strong in November, now it appears that we have 3 months of windy weather.

Wet hot summers and dry mild winters! sounds tropical? well that is anoither unusual factor as we are and always have been categorised as ARID...we are in the middle of a desert.

So things have become wierd...today is 41 C (110 F) and its about to rain.

[Pat Neuman]

Hi damienpaul,

I think your posts are very good... they provide good information.

Much of the work that I have done on climate and hydrology with links to National Weather Service station temperature data and articles that I've written can be found at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchi...ive/message/438

For people on this list that have a serious interest in climate, please join the public discussion group on climate at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

People can access other articles that I've posted on climate at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/

If you try but have trouble getting to my groups sites indicated above please let me know by sending me an e-mail to npat1@juno.com

Pat

[JESMKS]

Google has lots of sites describing cloud seeding. It is also used for fog control at airports.
Jack

[abyssalroamer]

What we call Earth systems is really valid for any planetary system and it is complex as hell. It is mostly thermodynamics and attendant physcial chemistry and electrochemical gradients. That will ultimately explain life on Mars, Venus and the Jovian moons. Because of the economic and politcal aspects--the human cycle- of the system on earth, some aspects, such as control of greehouse gasses, per se, are simply not going to be handled expediently (in terms or manipulating the global cycles). What we can do is understand the total system and see what can be done to mediate in other ways. That means, what other cycles can be manipluted to produce the same effects as reduceing the greenhouse gasemissions that may cause global warming. (If global warming is indeed a negative event. Runaway warming is obviously to our detriment as a species, but some development maybe shouldn't be messed with.) In point of fact, we are just barely understanding what is involved, so we are in a bad way. Ranting by non-scientists about what science is, as well as limited thinking by those in the sciences will not achieve anything productive. The other day I was in a seminar discussing the role of research, the synthesis of that research and the ultimate disemmination of the concepts. The conclusion was that what is needed is the ability to focus in and be able to back away and have a respected entity provide some guidance to the lay population. We, as a temperamental species, are just not ready for that.

[damienpaul]

That is exactly why environmental education in schools in the wider community needs to be continued and enhanced.

Can someone climatically clasifiy an environment where summer (generally Oct->May) is usually wet, reasonably humid and peaks at around 40-45 C (108 -> 114 F) and is dry in winter with temperatures as low as -8 C?

Just had the 9th 40+ degree C (108 F) in a row, and the fourth night with rain.

[Pat Neuman]

abyssalroamer,

There are no other cycles that can be " manipluted to produce the same effects as
reduceing the greenhouse gasemissions that may cause global warming."

When greenhouse gases are at high concentrations they dominate the effects of all other factors that might otherwise effect climate. The other factors can only be significant when atmosphereic concentrations of greenhouse gases are low.

See the link below, which links to other links for reports on greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and emissions from volcanism / tectonics at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...d_Climate/links (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/links)

Pat

[JESMKS]

Some more thoughts on the Ice Age and global warming by an old man.
The Ice Age was not brought on by climatic cooling but by an increase in precipitation. Even under our existing climate, if you doubled the average annual precipitation, more ice would begin to accumulate at higherel elevations and would begin moving as glaciers to lower elevations. If you accompanied this increase in precipitation with a slight increase in solar reflection from clouds and ice, you would further increase the rate of ice accumulation. If this lowered the frost line contour, larger areas would be subject to ice accumulation. For every 100 feet of lowering, the area of ice accumulation would increase many fold.
I am not familiar with the mechanics of climatic modeling, but lets assume we enter into another period of active volcanism that lasts 10,000 years. This volcanism results in the doubling of the average annual precipitation throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Also assume that solar reflection has been increased by 10 percent. I think a model showing the amount of ice accumulation would be at least, if not greater than that which occurred in any of the last three glacial advances in the Pleistocene Epoch.
I believe that greenhouse gas emissions do increase the rate of global warming, but even if they were completely eliminated, the earth would continue to recover from the last glacial period. It still has a long way to go to return to it's pre Ice Age (Pliocene) climate and sea level.
Nature has a wonderful capacity to moderate or recover from changes. For example, if a dam were to be constructed on a river, nature would immediately start filling the the reservoir with sediments so as to re-establish it's old gradient to enable the river to carry it's sediment load downstream. In the case of global warming, the oceans will have a rise in temperature. This increases the amount of evaporation and increases cloud cover. The cloud cover will continue to increase untill the amount of solar reflection reduces the amount of solar energy reaching the earth and cooling begins. When the oceans have cooled enough to reduce evaporation, clearing skys resume and the cycle begins all over again. I think "man" when describing the earth's condition and future is like the blind men describing the elephant. He bases his description and conclusions on observations made over a mere speck of time in the earth's history.
Jack

[Pat Neuman]

JESMKS,

I am interested in your views on this but have little time right now. Other people in my Paleontology_and_Climate (P&C) discussion group are currently discussing this subject. For additional discussion, I request that you join my public discussion group by going to my site and hit "Submit" to join in, at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

I could send you an invitation that might make it easier for you to join but I don't know your e-mail address. My e-mail address is npat1@juno.com

Pat


JESMKS Posted on Jan 28 2004, 05:13 PM
Some more thoughts on the Ice Age and global warming by an old man.
The Ice Age was not brought on by climatic cooling but by an increase in precipitation. Even under our existing climate, if you doubled the average annual precipitation, more ice would begin to accumulate at higherel elevations and would begin moving as glaciers to lower elevations. If you accompanied this increase in precipitation with a slight increase in solar reflection from clouds and ice, you would further increase the rate of ice accumulation. If this lowered the frost line contour, larger areas would be subject to ice accumulation. For every 100 feet of lowering, the area of ice accumulation would increase many fold.
I am not familiar with the mechanics of climatic modeling, but lets assume we enter into another period of active volcanism that lasts 10,000 years. This volcanism results in the doubling of the average annual precipitation throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Also assume that solar reflection has been increased by 10 percent. I think a model showing the amount of ice accumulation would be at least, if not greater than that which occurred in any of the last three glacial advances in the Pleistocene Epoch.
I believe that greenhouse gas emissions do increase the rate of global warming, but even if they were completely eliminated, the earth would continue to recover from the last glacial period. It still has a long way to go to return to it's pre Ice Age (Pliocene) climate and sea level.
Nature has a wonderful capacity to moderate or recover from changes. For example, if a dam were to be constructed on a river, nature would immediately start filling the the reservoir with sediments so as to re-establish it's old gradient to enable the river to carry it's sediment load downstream. In the case of global warming, the oceans will have a rise in temperature. This increases the amount of evaporation and increases cloud cover. The cloud cover will continue to increase untill the amount of solar reflection reduces the amount of solar energy reaching the earth and cooling begins. When the oceans have cooled enough to reduce evaporation, clearing skys resume and the cycle begins all over again. I think "man" when describing the earth's condition and future is like the blind men describing the elephant. He bases his description and conclusions on observations made over a mere speck of time in the earth's history.
Jack

[abyssalroamer]

It seems that this is as good a forum as any to discuss cycles that have applications to the entire universe. So far, universetoday has allowed us a platform to share ideas here, and not serve as a means to solicit interest in personal agendas and programs at other web locations, no matter how noble those may be. Take the time to share your ideas here, if they are worthy. If they are pedantic and self-serving, keep them away from here.

[damienpaul]

I was just discussing the climate around Alice Springs with a neighbour who has lived in the area for about 25 years. The past 2 weeks have seen 38C - 43C (100F - 114F) weather with humidity ranging between 20-40% peaking at 60% on occasions associated with frequent storms. Now this is unusually because as I previously mentioned, Alice Springs is right in the middle of a desert in the centre of Australia.

My neighbour has never seen such a frequency of very hot humid weather in her 20-25 years here, this is echoed by many in the area. I aksed a climatologist, how he would classify the recent weather in Alice Springs - his reply was that it resembled more sub tropical (just warmer) than arid.

[Pat Neuman]

This message is in reply to the Jan 28 post by JESMKS, and to others.

I think the Ice Age period was brought on by low atmospheric concentrations of CO2. I think the increase in atmospheric CO2, the increase in global temperatures and thaw of the world's ice are all at high rates not experienced in over 50 million years. I think that:
THE WORLD IS IN CRISIS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING!
I think that Conservation-aimed "financial incentives" are needed, see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchi...ive/message/229 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229)

It is now a good time to join my public discussion group on Climate, Rules are being discussed now. If anyone would like me to send them an invitation to join my public discussion group on climate please let me know.
Thank you.
Pat Neuman
Paleontology_and_Climate group leader, join at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)



JESMKS Posted on Jan 28 2004, 05:13 PM
Some more thoughts on the Ice Age and global warming by an old man.
The Ice Age was not brought on by climatic cooling but by an increase in precipitation. Even under our existing climate, if you doubled the average annual precipitation, more ice would begin to accumulate at higherel elevations and would begin moving as glaciers to lower elevations. If you accompanied this increase in precipitation with a slight increase in solar reflection from clouds and ice, you would further increase the rate of ice accumulation. If this lowered the frost line contour, larger areas would be subject to ice accumulation. For every 100 feet of lowering, the area of ice accumulation would increase many fold.
I am not familiar with the mechanics of climatic modeling, but lets assume we enter into another period of active volcanism that lasts 10,000 years. This volcanism results in the doubling of the average annual precipitation throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Also assume that solar reflection has been increased by 10 percent. I think a model showing the amount of ice accumulation would be at least, if not greater than that which occurred in any of the last three glacial advances in the Pleistocene Epoch.
I believe that greenhouse gas emissions do increase the rate of global warming, but even if they were completely eliminated, the earth would continue to recover from the last glacial period. It still has a long way to go to return to it's pre Ice Age (Pliocene) climate and sea level.
Nature has a wonderful capacity to moderate or recover from changes. For example, if a dam were to be constructed on a river, nature would immediately start filling the the reservoir with sediments so as to re-establish it's old gradient to enable the river to carry it's sediment load downstream. In the case of global warming, the oceans will have a rise in temperature. This increases the amount of evaporation and increases cloud cover. The cloud cover will continue to increase untill the amount of solar reflection reduces the amount of solar energy reaching the earth and cooling begins. When the oceans have cooled enough to reduce evaporation, clearing skys resume and the cycle begins all over again. I think "man" when describing the earth's condition and future is like the blind men describing the elephant. He bases his description and conclusions on observations made over a mere speck of time in the earth's history.
Jack

[JESMKS]

As water and carbon dioxide are the two most abundant gases released to the atmosphere during volcanic eruptions, and as the Ice Age was accompanied by many active volcanoes, I would be very much surprised if the Ice Age was related to low concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If anything, the Ice Age atmosphere probably had a higher concentration of carbon dioxide than that which exists today.

[Pat Neuman]

JESMKS Posted: Feb 5 2004, 07:45 PM
> I would be very much surprised if the Ice Age was related
> to low concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.


http://earth.usc.edu/geol150/variability/co2.html

Orbital-scale climate change and CO2
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate on shorter time scales as well. During the last 400,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has fluctuated in concert with global ice volume (see figure).

maximum ice volume at low CO2 concentrations
minimum ice volume at high CO2 concentrations

Are you surprised?

Pat

[VanderL]

I'm a supporter of reducing air pollution and CO2 emission, but I'm also convinced that we hardly know anything about the cause of global warming. I think it is a form of anthropocentrism that makes us certain that we are causing global warming while in fact there is not enough data to make this claim.
Cheers.

[Pat Neuman]

Anyone with a serious interest in climate is invited to join the groups at:

1. Public discussion group at...

Paleontology_and_Climate-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


2. View climate articles at ClimateArchive group at...

ClimateArchive-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

------------------------------

Send an e-mail using one of the subscribe lines (above) in the "To"
part of your message. Nothing needed in subject or body.

You will get an e-mail message that says if you want to join click the URL.
If you do that a yahoo website comes up and asks a couple simple questions in order to complete the subscribing process.

Try it out, if you don't like it's simple to unsubscribe.

Pat
Then

[JESMKS]

I am very much surprised and still have my doubts. The maximum volume of ice does not necessarily coinside with the time of maximum ice accumulation. The ice volume lags behind the time of accumulation like Winter lags behind the Winter Solstice. We had three major ice advances during the Pleistocene, each followed by a long period of recovery (warming). I believe the the ice accumulatin in each of these stages was brought on by a great increase in precipitation caused by cloud seeding from widespread volcanic activity. I also believe that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere at the time of cloud seeding would have been elevated by the ongoing volcanic activity. As the volcanic activity waned and warming began long before the time of maximum extent of each ice advance, the low carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere at the time of maximum ice advance could relate to a warming period and not to the time of maximum ice accumulation. Warming begins in the area of ice accumulation long before it's effect can be measured by melting and retreat of ice at the toe of a glacier.

Jack

[fogged in]

My personal view is not scientific at all. I do not believe much in human caused "global warming" That is, If we are really warming. I think as humans, we just have really big egos thinking that we are in charge of the earths temperature. I recall when Mt. Pinatubo blew. Didn't the temperatures around the earth cool one or two degrees for the next two years because of that one volcano?
I recall the sunsets were also supposed to be redder than normal because of all the stuff put into the upper atmosphere, but I don't recall paying any attention.
I don't think we have been here long enough to know the exact cycles of warming and cooling. Even tho there are cycles..... cycles are made to be broken every now and then.

Check out this link and see that according to it, we are cooling, not warming, and according to the author the cause is not us.
I found the info very interesting.
http://www.iceagenow.com/
Follow the links on temperatures being monitored around the world.

[Duane]

Pat, couple of articles you may find interesting:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environme...sp?story=484490 (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=484490)

http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover5.html

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/curren...ruptclimate.htm (http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ct_abruptclimate.htm)

There is other matrial available and more focused studies are underway.

I think it is dangerous to pepper a position with absolutes, when there is a great deal of understanding and agreement that we have very little understanding or agreement. ;)

If you had asked me 10 years ago what was causing global heating, I would have replied with deep confidence 'man"

Five years ago, I would have replied "man" but been open to hearing counter-arguments.

2 years ago, I would have said "probably man".

Today, I have to say I don't know, but I think man is having an influence.

Mankind is conducting a huge and, IMHO dangerous experiment. My personal view is that we should be careful and take steps to lesson whatever impact we might be having.

[VanderL]

I can only repeat what I said earlier; we don't know enough about the Sun to know how big our impact on our climate is. Having said that, I also agree that we should stop polluting and destroying our environment.

[Pat Neuman]

Good morning,

In reply... I sent a post to another group on Feb. 14 with my position regarding what some say could be another ice age, excerpt below...

[ Thanks for the research report. I wouldn't bet on another ice age
in a million years. I would be interested in discussing this further
at the P&C discussion group homepage at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

There is a comprehensive set of FOLDERS with links that
can be accessed by members from the homepage at P&C.
You & others with interest in climate change are welcome to join. ]

Research report:
- - - - - - - - - - -
HOW GLOBAL WARMING MAY CAUSE THE NEXT ICE AGE...
By Thom Hartmann, Friday, January 30, 2004
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print....s04/0130-11.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0130-11.htm)

I am not trying to steal people away from this forum. I like to come here too.

Pat N

[Pat Neuman]

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities

USGS website (Feb. 18, 2004)...
Human activities release more
than 150 times the amount of CO2
emitted by volcanoes ...
...
about 22 billion tonnes per year.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/Vol...Gas/volgas.html (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html)


Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230
million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere
every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both
subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions
of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement
production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per
year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times
the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly
17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2
million tonnes/year)! '
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/Vol...Gas/volgas.html (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html)

Compare the graph on this homepage...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

with the graph on this homepage...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

The secret is out.

Pat

[fisherofmen]

The answer is quite simple...
Our sun goes through cycles. Sometimes it emits more solar radiation than others which causes an increased universal warming effect. At other times, less radiation escapes the suns gravitational grip and the annual terperature average is slightly lower.
My question is this... How does one explain away the global warming theory during the cooler times? (Or do they just find another topic to focus on until the cycle swings upward once again...?)

[fogged in]

Originally posted by fisherofmen@Feb 18 2004, 11:50 PM
The answer is quite simple...
Our sun goes through cycles. Sometimes it emits more solar radiation than others which causes an increased universal warming effect. At other times, less radiation escapes the suns gravitational grip and the annual terperature average is slightly lower.
My question is this... How does one explain away the global warming theory during the cooler times? (Or do they just find another topic to focus on until the cycle swings upward once again...?)



In my opinion, if the earth started cooling faster than "average", the doom sayers would then seek out a reason that global cooling is man caused. A lose, lose situation.
If the site I posted earlier is accurate, then the earth is actually cooling slightly not warming as the alarmists are saying.

It's just human nature.

[Pat Neuman]

Shindell, D., 2003 Solar Variability, Ozone, and Climate
" The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/shindell_03/

Crowley T.J. 2000 Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
"Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000 year time series results in a residual with a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing". July 14, 2000 Science, 289: 270-277.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html

Judith Lean(1997), Climate Forcing By Changing Solar Radiation
"Extending this relationship to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55oC surface warming since 1860, but less than one third of the 0.36oC warming since 1970."
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GOIN/NASA/JLean.htm

--------------------------------------

Posted: Jan 22 2004, 12:32 PM

The change in the rate of global warming during the mid-late 1970s can be seen by viewing Table 1, below, which shows Global Land air Temperature (GLT).

GLT in 2003 was 0.83°C (1.50°F) above the
1880-2003 average of 8.5°C (47.3°F).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Table 1: Change in 10 year average GLT in degrees F

Year : GLT: 10yrAvg
1880 46.90
1881 47.02
1882 47.11
1883 46.66
1884 46.41
1885 46.67
1886 46.87
1887 46.81
1888 46.66
Annual GLT: 10yrAvg: 10yrChg: Times 100
1889 47.28 46.84 : . . . .
1890 47.06 46.85 : +.01 ... + 1
1891 46.78 46.83 : -.02 ... - 2
1892 46.62 46.78 : -.05 ... - 5
1893 46.43 46.76 : -.02 ... - 2
1894 46.98 46.82 : +.06 ... + 6
1895 46.81 46.83 : +.01 ... + 1
1896 47.03 46.85 : +.02 ... + 2
1897 47.21 46.89 : +.04 ... + 4
1898 47.01 46.92 : +.03 ... + 3
1899 47.13 46.91 : -.01 ... - 1
1900 47.32 46.93 : +.02 ... + 2
1901 47.31 46.99 : +.06 ... + 6
1902 46.91 47.01 : +.02 ... + 2
1903 46.81 47.05 : +.04 ... + 4
1904 46.59 47.01 : -.04 ... + 4
1905 46.88 47.02 : +.01 ... + 1
1906 47.22 47.04 : +.02 ... + 2
1907 46.41 46.96 : -.08 ... - 8
1908 46.67 46.93 : -.03 ... - 3
1909 46.77 46.89 : -.04 ... - 4
1910 46.99 46.86 : -.03 ... - 3
1911 46.88 46.81 : -.05 ... - 5
1912 46.77 46.80 : -.01 ... - 1
1913 47.05 46.82 : +.02 ... + 2
1914 47.49 46.91 : +.09 ... + 9
1915 47.49 46.97 : +.06 ... + 6
1916 46.92 46.94 : -.03 ... - 3
1917 46.34 46.94 : 0.00 ..... 0
1918 46.86 46.96 : +.02 ... + 2
1919 47.05 46.99 : +.03 ... + 3
1920 47.07 46.99 : 0.00 ..... 0
1921 47.50 47.05 : +.06 ... + 6
1922 47.16 47.09 : +.04 ... + 4
1923 47.15 47.10 : +.01 ... + 1
1924 47.06 47.06 : -.04 ... - 4
1925 47.29 47.04 : -.02 ... - 2
1926 47.53 47.10 : +.06 ... + 6
1927 47.26 47.19 : +.09 ... + 9
1928 47.38 47.24 : +.05 ... + 5
1929 46.86 47.22 : +.02 ... + 2
1930 47.50 47.27 : +.05 ... + 5
1931 47.57 47.27 : 0.00 ..... 0
1932 47.48 47.31 : +.04 ... + 4
1933 47.07 47.30 : -.01 ... - 1
1934 47.60 47.35 : +.05 ... + 5
1935 47.31 47.35 : 0.00 ..... 0
1936 47.39 47.34 : -.01 ... - 1
1937 47.59 47.37 : +.03 ... + 3
1938 47.87 47.42 : +.05 ... + 5
1939 47.64 47.50 : +.08 ... + 8
1940 47.52 47.50 : 0.00 ..... 0
1941 47.56 47.50 : 0.00 ..... 0
1942 47.49 47.50 : 0.00 ..... 0
1943 47.54 47.55 : +.05 ... + 5
1944 47.69 47.56 : +.01 ... + 1
1945 47.32 47.56 : 0.00 ..... 0
1946 47.48 47.57 : +.01 ... + 1
1947 47.56 47.57 : 0.00 ..... 0
1948 47.56 47.54 : -.03 ... - 3
1949 47.40 47.51 : -.03 ... - 3
1950 47.04 47.46 : -.05 ... - 5
1951 47.39 47.45 : -.01 ... - 1
1952 47.44 47.44 : -.01 ... - 1
1953 47.75 47.46 : +.02 ... + 2
1954 47.22 47.42 : -.04 ... - 4
1955 47.22 47.41 : -.01 ... - 1
1956 46.69 47.33 : -.08 ... - 8
1957 47.41 47.31 : -.02 ... - 2
1958 47.68 47.32 : +.01 ... + 1
1959 47.51 47.34 : +.02 ... + 2
1960 47.37 47.37 : +.03 ... + 3
1961 47.58 47.39 : +.02 ... + 2
1962 47.55 47.40 : +.01 ... + 1
1963 47.56 47.38 : -.02 ... - 2
1964 46.97 47.35 : -.03 ... - 3
1965 47.11 47.34 : -.01 ... - 1
1966 47.32 47.41 : +.07 ... + 7
1967 47.28 47.39 : -.02 ... - 2
1968 47.11 47.34 : -.05 ... - 5
1969 47.31 47.32 : -.02 ... - 2
1970 47.41 47.32 : 0.00 ..... 0
1971 47.15 47.28 : -.04 ... - 4
1972 47.08 47.23 : -.05 ... - 5
1973 47.79 47.25 : +.02 ... + 2
1974 47.02 47.26 : +.01 ... + 1
1975 47.41 47.29 : +.03 ... + 3
1976 46.84 47.24 : -.05 ... - 5
1977 47.71 47.28 : +.04 ... + 4
1978 47.43 47.32 : +.04 ... + 4
1979 47.66 47.35 : +.03 ... + 3
1980 47.75 47.38 : +.03 ... + 3
1981 48.13 47.48 : +.10 ... +10
1982 47.53 47.53 : +.05 ... + 5
1983 48.15 47.56 : +.03 ... + 3
1984 47.43 47.60 : +.04 ... + 4
1985 47.49 47.61 : +.01 ... + 1
1986 47.77 47.70 : +.11 ... +11
1987 48.09 47.74 : +.04 ... + 4
1988 48.24 47.82 : +.08 ... + 8
1989 48.03 47.86 : +.04 ... + 4
1990 48.54 47.94 : +.08 ... + 8
1991 48.29 47.96 : +.02 ... + 2
1992 47.82 47.98 : +.02 ... + 2
1993 47.91 47.96 : -.02 ... - 2
1994 48.35 48.05 : +.09 ... + 9
1995 48.61 48.16 : +.11 ... +11
1996 48.03 48.19 : +.03 ... + 3
1997 48.51 48.23 : +.04 ... + 4
1998 49.15 48.32 : +.09 ... + 9
1999 48.69 48.39 : +.07 ... + 7
2000 48.44 48.38 : -.01 ... - 1
2001 48.82 48.43 : +.05 ... + 5
2002 49.03 48.55 : +.12 ... +12
2003 48.80 48.64 : +.09 ...+ 9 #

# 48.64 -48.55
# 10 yr avg (1994-2003) minus 10 yr avg (1993-2002)

* Chg in 10 yr avg ending 2003 = 0.09 per year
* Chg in 10 yr avg ending 2003 = 0.90 per 10 yr [Chg in 10 yr avg x10]
* Chg in 10 yr avg ending 2003 = 09.0 per 100 yr [Chg in 10 yr avg x100]

* Invalid to use these Chg values for prediction or extrapolation into
future.

2003 GLT in degrees Fahrenheit (F)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
47.30 F - 1880-2003 Long-Term Land Mean
+1.50 F - anomaly land for 2003 NOAA NCDC
48.80 F - Global Land Temperature ( GLT for 2003)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The purpose of the 10 yr table (above) and the graph of GLT at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/ is to track the
acceleration in global warming.

Note that the sum of the changes (5, 12, 9) for the last three years(2001-2003)
is the highest sum of annual changes in 10 yr moving averages for 3 consecutive years in 124 years of record (1880-2003), indicating that global warming is accelerating.

To see what is causing the rapid increase in global warming
since the 1970s, check out the CO2 hockey stick at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center has accounted for urban heat island (UHI) in deriving their globally averaged annual land air temperature data, which was used for Table 1 and the figure of GLT (1880-2003) available on the ClimateArchive homepage.

Pat

[Cambo]

I wish to say I'm sorry Pat.
You appear to me to be a reasonably intellegent person and put your argument in what appears to be strong terms. Unfortunately 200 years of weather watching and recording in a period of 11,000 years, to pick the minimum, is insufficient on which to base any solid predictions. Yes ice drilling in both the Arctic and Antarctic do produce records of certain gases trapped within it for a much larger period of time. These records should be taken into account, but not used as 'gospel', not that you have, because it is a reading from one place on earth and one place only.
There may be other reasons for these gases appearing or the extent of their effect, but my knowledge is limited.
In regards to the measurements taken and used by you to substantiate your position, are they world wide measurements or U.S. centric? How much of the records are world based and when did this change happen?
Your arguments so far do not take into account other natural effects of global warming as outlined by others in this topic and this weakens your position markedly. With all the records at your disposal comparisons with other natural events would be helpful to your argument and give me more impetus to accept your point of view with more voracity than I do at present.
The apparent one eyed approach which I see coming out of your argument actually does more harm for your position than good.
The belief that 'we' are causing global warming to the minimisation of all other influences is a big bad case of hubris.
In conclusion it would be good to know that if there is such a thing as global warming that by changing our lifestyle it would fix the problem, but as yet I am yet to be convinced that global warming is a problem or that we could be the main cause.

p.s.
I am not saying damn the environment, looking after it is something we must do without exception.

[Tinaa]

Pat please see The Rules (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1134) Please do not copy and paste from other web sites. Just use a link. If someone cares to read more, they can go there. Thanks

[Peter Canuck]

Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Paaaaaaaat...

Way to much information and #'s.
Lets try to keep the information we put up here to some nice basic arguements.

Global warming is happening. No one (of an intelligent nature) disputes that.
Manking has played a role in this we beleive due to our measurements of tempertures in the past 150 or so years, and of the ozone in the past few decades.

Is mankind and our polution the major player in our current time Global warming. Well what else might be causing it?

INcreased Solar Radiation? Possible. There needs to be MORE study before we can say its playing a definite factor. For now we can safely say it has a very good chance of being a contributing factor, but not the only factor.

[Pat Neuman]

These three links below show that fossil fuel emissions by humans are responsible for rapid global warming, already underway.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/shindell_03/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GOIN/NASA/JLean.htm

Next two links below show atmospheric CO2 and increases in global temperatures.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/

I calculated the moving 10 year global temperature averages by Excel spread sheet, using annual global data from NOAA NCDC (1880-2003).

I am owner of Paleontology_and_Climate discussion group. I will discuss paleonontology and climate from 250 million years ago to present with anyone that joins Paleontology_and_Climate. You can join at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...y...nd_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

Pat

[Pat Neuman]

Tinaa Posted: Feb 22 2004, 02:21 AM
Pat please see The Rules Please do not copy and paste from other web sites. Just use a link. If someone cares to read more, they can go there. Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tinaa,

On Feb 22 you falsely accused me of "copy and paste from other websites".

I did not copy and paste that information, I created it.

I created "Table 1: Change in 10 year average GLT in degrees F" (from spread sheet) based on annual data which I obtained from the noaa.ncdc website.

I referenced the two websites below, which I made and own.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology...gy_and_Climate/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/)

Pat

[DippyHippy]

Okay, this is in danger of becoming personal so if everyone - on all sides - could just chill out, I won't have to shut this topic down.

[GOURDHEAD]

Pat,

It would be a great help to each of us if you could convince us how many points on the ground, air, and sea have been consistently monitored with equipment of what accuracy between 1880 and 2003. My guess is that we're dealing with a sparse data set of unknown accuracy which varies in sparseness being less sparse as we approach 2003. Also, the accuracy of data and the optimality of monitored points, especially in the air and sea, has probably increased as we approach 2003. How much faith do you have in the models that are being used to relate temperatures of the various media and their respective thermal capacities to calculate the increase in overall heat content of the earth's biosphere?

Do you have a convincing rebuttal of those opining the imminent start of an ice age?

If your arguments prove both valid and convincing, what shall we do that is less destructive to the current population? Have you considered the impact to agricultural production; transportation of food, goods, and services; and the attendant likelihood of mass starvation and the accompanying mass rioting and general civil unrest that would result from significant reduction of fossil fuel use in an abrupt manner? How shall we navigate this maze with minimal pain? Have you seen an analysis of unintended consequences of the various remedial actions open to us (that we have thus far thought of)?

Your concern for the well being of all earthlings is commendable. Is the degree of alarm based on sufficiently thorough analysis? How can we be sure we are not doing something analagous to fleeing the sharks in the water only to be devoured by the large bears and cats of the forest? Not even global warming is an "island"!!

[Fraser]

I'm going to close this thread down. It's becoming clear to me Pat that you're essentially promoting your own discussion forum here in Universe Today.

The only reason I didn't do this earlier was because I agree with you that global warming is a risk we should take seriously.

Good luck with your forum.