Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[Red Arrow]

Well, when you have beaches like this, I guess you're right.

Sand, water, a few rocks, what more do you want?   

[heironymouspasparagus]

http://www.skeptictank.org/files//evolut/mammoth0.htm

Here's another one.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

I think the fall into diluvial ice crevice is probably about as credible as it gets.  Suspect we will never really know the whole story.

Even if frozen quickly, like would happen with either a fall into crevice or instant drop in temperature, there have been enough intervening warm/cold cycles so that decay and or mummification could easily occur.  (The ziploc bag instead of the Foodsaver vacuum pack steak commercial is classic example of mummification.) 

When these died with buttercups in their stomachs, it was in a climate that is pretty warm (east Tennessee and Kentucky have a lot of buttercups - maybe others I don't know about), which is probably the Siberian climate with the ice underground scenario. 

I think Red may be closer than anyone - space alien ray gun.  Not to be confused with space alien Reagan.....

[dbacks fan]

heir, you are the one that claimed that they were frozen to death in mid stride about two pages back, not me.

Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
« Reply #128 on: November 14, 2011, 11:27:07 am » Quote 

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

Quote from: dbacks fan on November 11, 2011, 04:05:15 pm'The Day After Tomorrow' a documentary?


Yes!  Absolutely!

When you look at the number (several) of large herbivores in the form of mammoths who have been entrained in ice packs it is obvious that something very radical must be happening very quickly.  In this case, extreme cold beyond any of our experience happening in the course of minutes to possibly tens of minutes (less than an hour).

Where is the evidence?  Well, look at the conditions in which the animal was found - still standing, with a stomach full of partially and undigested fresh food, and with a mouth full of food that it had been chewing on.  How long does it take a mammoth to chew a mouthful and swallow?  Unknown, but a reasonable guess would be on a par with an elephant.  Minutes at the outside - I watch the animal shows like everyone else where the elephant grabs a mouthful, chews it up, then 30 seconds later is going for another bite.

What happened is that a very large mammal, with about a two foot layer of fat for living in extreme winter conditions, was wallking along eating a plant that was growing (that means above 32 degrees F), and in mid-chew, became incapable of finishing that bite, locked in place, surrounded by enough snow/ice so that it and the food was perfectly preserved for thousands of years.  That is 'quick-freezing' that our food industry would pay huge sums of money to know how to do.

And that whole sequence took many minutes to play out in the movie, so it was shown in 'slow motion' compared to the reality.

Documentary.

[dbacks fan]

Yes!  Absolutely!

When you look at the number (several) of large herbivores in the form of mammoths who have been entrained in ice packs it is obvious that something very radical must be happening very quickly.  In this case, extreme cold beyond any of our experience happening in the course of minutes to possibly tens of minutes (less than an hour).

Where is the evidence?  Well, look at the conditions in which the animal was found - still standing, with a stomach full of partially and undigested fresh food, and with a mouth full of food that it had been chewing on.  How long does it take a mammoth to chew a mouthful and swallow?  Unknown, but a reasonable guess would be on a par with an elephant.  Minutes at the outside - I watch the animal shows like everyone else where the elephant grabs a mouthful, chews it up, then 30 seconds later is going for another bite.
What happened is that a very large mammal, with about a two foot layer of fat for living in extreme winter conditions, was wallking along eating a plant that was growing (that means above 32 degrees F), and in mid-chew, became incapable of finishing that bite, locked in place, surrounded by enough snow/ice so that it and the food was perfectly preserved for thousands of years.  That is 'quick-freezing' that our food industry would pay huge sums of money to know how to do.
And that whole sequence took many minutes to play out in the movie, so it was shown in 'slow motion' compared to the reality.

Documentary.

[heironymouspasparagus]

heir, you are the one that claimed that they were frozen to death in mid stride about two pages back, not me.

Yep.  I sure did.  I think that is certainly one possible scenario.  As is falling into the crevasse (been using the wrong word...).  Truth is, I suspect there are several scenarios.  In the overall scheme of things, ice ages seem to have a fairly sudden onset - but is that 2 to 3 minutes or 100 years?  I'm betting that if the ocean current they talk about is slowed substantially or stops due to fresh water - if that is what happens - then things may happen quickly.  Probably quicker than 100 years, but much more than 10 minutes.  Not sure enough information is known about past events to really understand.


The Nowata example is still puzzling to me.  Why did it go so much colder, so quickly (within a couple of hours or so) than everyone around it.  Tulsa was only -8 or -10 that night.  Did they have their own little hole open up to the mesosphere?  I am skeptical that it would just be arctic air - where was the rest of that temperature arctic air?  Never did hear the meteorologists explain that, but I was in and out a lot that week, so could easily have missed it.

As for the mammoths, even encased in ice, with the decay and mummification, the food is talked about as if it is relatively un-decayed.  Freezing with "spoil" vegetation for eating, making it mush, but it doesn't take long - a few days at most above freezing - before experiences advanced decomposition.  The mammoth from the TV show a few years ago turned out to be only some bones and a little bit of flesh left. 

[nathanm]

The Nowata example is still puzzling to me.  Why did it go so much colder, so quickly (within a couple of hours or so) than everyone around it.  Tulsa was only -8 or -10 that night.  Did they have their own little hole open up to the mesosphere?  I am skeptical that it would just be arctic air - where was the rest of that temperature arctic air?  Never did hear the meteorologists explain that, but I was in and out a lot that week, so could easily have missed it.

Less cloud cover and less wind, IIRC. Both enhance radiative cooling.

[Hoss]

Yep.  I sure did.  I think that is certainly one possible scenario.  As is falling into the crevasse (been using the wrong word...).  Truth is, I suspect there are several scenarios.  In the overall scheme of things, ice ages seem to have a fairly sudden onset - but is that 2 to 3 minutes or 100 years?  I'm betting that if the ocean current they talk about is slowed substantially or stops due to fresh water - if that is what happens - then things may happen quickly.  Probably quicker than 100 years, but much more than 10 minutes.  Not sure enough information is known about past events to really understand.


The Nowata example is still puzzling to me.  Why did it go so much colder, so quickly (within a couple of hours or so) than everyone around it.  Tulsa was only -8 or -10 that night.  Did they have their own little hole open up to the mesosphere?  I am skeptical that it would just be arctic air - where was the rest of that temperature arctic air?  Never did hear the meteorologists explain that, but I was in and out a lot that week, so could easily have missed it.

As for the mammoths, even encased in ice, with the decay and mummification, the food is talked about as if it is relatively un-decayed.  Freezing with "spoil" vegetation for eating, making it mush, but it doesn't take long - a few days at most above freezing - before experiences advanced decomposition.  The mammoth from the TV show a few years ago turned out to be only some bones and a little bit of flesh left. 

Microclimates are a weird thing.

[TheArtist]

Deer in winter still eat grass.  One of the proposed uses for those long Mammoth tusks is that they would swing their heads side to side to help uncover the grasses under the snow.  Some similarly tusked critters that live in cold environs have been seen to do that.  Even in the heart of winter out on those grasslands there is a lot of... grass, with and without snow on top.  There are those shaggy things that live up in Alaska that eat grass and will do so with snow on the ground and will keep on eating right in the middle of a furious snowstorm.  That's just what they do, they plod along in the snow and eat grass, and they will keep trying to eat it until they die.      

[heironymouspasparagus]

Musk ox and caribou do that.

But it summer, it warms up enough for buttercups some places - not sure about tundra.

[erfalf]

I was watching a show on History channel this weekend about the mini Ice Age. I was incredibly surprised to see several scientist presented that were decenters of Man Made Global Warming. Generally shows like this are pretty one sided, but they took a "fair and balanced" approach and let the viewer decide.

First off I will admit I do not believe in MMGW or have yet to be convinced that it is true. In my opinion it is up to them to prove it is true and not up to me to prove it is false. If I were proposing life changing rules if it were false that would be a different story then wouldn't it.

Second, I notice that any time two opposing debaters get together on the internet, invariably it is pointed out someone is receiving money from big bad oil. Well, I would dare to say that climate change scientist are under similar pressures so I am going to assume from this point forward that everyone actually believes what they are saying (probably naïve, but hey roll with it for now).

Third, would someone please address the following questions that came to mind while I was watching this show:

1. Generally (as I understand it) scientist look to replicate their findings in experiments. Have any of these actually been done and what were the results.
2. At no point in history have all the variables that exist today existed simultaneously. So how is that scientist can conclude that human intervention is what is causing this when it has happened before multiple times. In my opinion it seems that the cause and effect have gotten switched around.
3. Now this is something I always say to my friends: How is it that I can't get what the weather is going to be on Friday right but I have to take these "experts" word for it that the weather 200 years from now is going to be unpleasant?

Also I don't recall where I heard this, but I think I heard the EPA is wanting to regulate dust (in regards to farmers in particular). Are these people crazy? Yes farmers make dust, but in all fairness the dust is a by-product of creating food. Something I could argue is fairly important to our sustainability. Plus I always hear them complaining about chemicals and what not. If these people would actually spend a month out with real farmers they would be singing a different tune. Farmers use remarkably little chemicals in modern farming. In fact the use of chemicals is a response to no-till farming practices which means less carbon emissions and less dust from the lack of tilling. The amount of chemicals you use in your own yard is more than likely exponentially higher than the amount that farmers use to grow their crops. Farmers by definition are some of the most ecologically minded people on the planet because their livelihood depends on the health of the soil. If they knew something could be improved, trust me they would. The modern farmer has decreased world hunger more than any other entity bar none. They do more with less every year due to dictatorial governments confiscating tillable land. A monument ought to be erected but I doubt that will ever happen.

[heironymouspasparagus]

First off I will admit I do not believe in MMGW or have yet to be convinced that it is true. In my opinion it is up to them to prove it is true and not up to me to prove it is false. If I were proposing life changing rules if it were false that would be a different story then wouldn't it.

Third, would someone please address the following questions that came to mind while I was watching this show:

1. Generally (as I understand it) scientist look to replicate their findings in experiments. Have any of these actually been done and what were the results.
2. At no point in history have all the variables that exist today existed simultaneously. So how is that scientist can conclude that human intervention is what is causing this when it has happened before multiple times. In my opinion it seems that the cause and effect have gotten switched around.
3. Now this is something I always say to my friends: How is it that I can't get what the weather is going to be on Friday right but I have to take these "experts" word for it that the weather 200 years from now is going to be unpleasant?

Check out the charts on page 8 of this thread.  It shows about 400,000 years of temp/co2/dust information.  If printed out and overlapped, you can see that EVERY change - up or down - in CO2 was preceded by change in temperature.  Now, granted, this is data from the southern hemisphere - we don't have corresponding data in the north.  There may be phasing issues - delays for mixing in the atmosphere - but over the time frame involved, it will even out.

1,2,3.  It is my thought that we absolutely can and do have an effect on climate - it actually is a fact.  Our dust bowl was indeed caused by man in the form of uninformed farming practices.  And it affected a large chunk of the country in only about a 40 year period (1890 - 1930).  What we are doing today releasing CO2 is orders of magnitude bigger than what they were able to do then, so it is very likely to have an effect.  It will be adding to whatever is happening naturally, though.  It's gonna happen anyway, just can we make it faster or slower?

And looking at those charts, it looks like something is due right now...

Kind of like the mammoths - did they freeze quickly, or a little slower?


Farmers - fantastic people!  Have quite a few family who have been or were their entire lives.  Wish I could make a living at it, would be doing so today!!  (Have talent in gardening, but not farming.)

One question - about the dictatorial confiscation - where did you ever hear of that happening?  None of the family has ever encountered anything like that (over 120 years and thousands of acres).  There is a program where they will pay you to take acreage out of production, but the only confiscation any of the clan has ever encountered was for a lake and dam site in Tennessee. 

[nathanm]

1. Generally (as I understand it) scientist look to replicate their findings in experiments. Have any of these actually been done and what were the results.

I think getting an experiment that may involve the inundation of countless cities and the extinction of countless species past an ethical review board would be about zero. If you are asking if experiments have been done to quantify the greenhouse effect and how much different gases contribute to it, the answer is yes.

There's pretty much zero dispute that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. There is also zero dispute about the amount that we have dumped into the atmosphere through burning of fossil fuels. Yet somehow, there is dispute about whether or not dumping all that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere actually did anything. It's cognitive dissonance writ large.

[erfalf]

If printed out and overlapped, you can see that EVERY change - up or down - in CO2 was preceded by change in temperature.  

Then don't we have it the wrong way around? If CO2 is a lagging indicator or temperature, then what would reducing carbon emissions solve?

One question - about the dictatorial confiscation - where did you ever hear of that happening?  None of the family has ever encountered anything like that (over 120 years and thousands of acres).  There is a program where they will pay you to take acreage out of production, but the only confiscation any of the clan has ever encountered was for a lake and dam site in Tennessee. 

Yes, the government subsidizes taking land out of productions, but only temporarily (like 5 to 10 years depending on the program).

I wasn't speaking exclusively about the United States. The food business is a global business more than any other. However, our federal government has been putting more and more land under it's "protection" over the last century. In fairness, not all of it is tillable land. Other countries however have been making it a practice to manipulate the commodity market. All be it we practice a little of that here too through certain subsidies.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Then don't we have it the wrong way around? If CO2 is a lagging indicator or temperature, then what would reducing carbon emissions solve?

Yes, the government subsidizes taking land out of productions, but only temporarily (like 5 to 10 years depending on the program).

I wasn't speaking exclusively about the United States. The food business is a global business more than any other. However, our federal government has been putting more and more land under it's "protection" over the last century. In fairness, not all of it is tillable land. Other countries however have been making it a practice to manipulate the commodity market. All be it we practice a little of that here too through certain subsidies.

Exactly!  That is the really BIG question about this whole thing.  It literally is a chicken/egg thing, and I think we got it backwards.  One scenario I could very easily see is when the temp starts up, the CO2 then follows due to the increased vegetation from warmer/plant friendlier climate.  And then what happens to oxygen?  You would think it would go up, also, due to more foliage.  Haven't seen the data for that, but would expect it to follow CO2, but then I would kind of expect more and bigger animals due to higher oxygen, which would tend to drive CO2 up, which would reduce the animals and increase plants.  But then the more animals eat more plants, lowering the oxygen making capacity, making smaller animals, making less CO2, so there are fewer plants due to reduced CO2.  Ever watch a dog chase it's tail?  Same effect - lots of commotion with no real progress.

It gets very weird, very quick.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I wasn't speaking exclusively about the United States. The food business is a global business more than any other. However, our federal government has been putting more and more land under it's "protection" over the last century. In fairness, not all of it is tillable land. Other countries however have been making it a practice to manipulate the commodity market. All be it we practice a little of that here too through certain subsidies.

It really has been getting rid of land more than adding.  That 30% the Fed owns is probably down from higher number, since they have made a concerted effort to sell since the late 40's.  Nevada seems to be the big stinking point.  The push is to give the Fed land to the state, so they can sell it to people for their little ranchettes and the state will make a ton of money.  Once.  Kind of stupid, given the limited water availability (they are completely out of it), and the fact you can't really do much other than mine it a little bit.

But reality just doesn't intrude into out consciousness much.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html