Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[Conan71]

Would like to have a real discussion sometime on this board related to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere...THAT is the point that is being danced around - pretty much by both sides - and what the effects of that will be (probably bad ones) and how soon (hard to say).  This whole cycle is dramatically/drastically different from the previous 400,000 years and it probably ain't gonna be pretty.  EVERY other cycle, we have seen temperature change way before CO2.  This time, they are moving together - plus all the other possible adverse events happening now.  Like equatorial rainforest - we don't know if losing that is a good thing or a bad thing.  (My bet is on 'bad thing').

Higher CO2 could literally mean more plant life, which would bring about more oxygen, which would lead to more animal life.  This could be good....??  Or not.  Need less partisan BS and way more research - not more big oil obstructionism!

Anyone who dismisses out of hand the doubling of average CO2 in just the last couple hundred years, though, is a Luddite 1D-10-T  (Army nomenclature).

I agree about the point on less partisan views on it.  I'm digging beyond the partisan crap because the media keeps repeating what is being spoon fed to them by partisan interests.  That's what I do, dig for the truth and reach my own conclusions.  I could give love all about what the major news nitworks keep spewing on AGW- for or against.

If you would read some of the source reports which are included in the 97% meme, you'd realize there's little consensus between climatologists as to the overall effects of CO2 and it's exact place in the equation.

[TheArtist]

Would like to have a real discussion sometime on this board related to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere...THAT is the point that is being danced around - pretty much by both sides - and what the effects of that will be (probably bad ones) and how soon (hard to say).  This whole cycle is dramatically/drastically different from the previous 400,000 years and it probably ain't gonna be pretty.  EVERY other cycle, we have seen temperature change way before CO2.  This time, they are moving together - plus all the other possible adverse events happening now.  Like equatorial rainforest - we don't know if losing that is a good thing or a bad thing.  (My bet is on 'bad thing').

Higher CO2 could literally mean more plant life, which would bring about more oxygen, which would lead to more animal life.  This could be good....??  Or not.  Need less partisan BS and way more research - not more big oil obstructionism!

Anyone who dismisses out of hand the doubling of average CO2 in just the last couple hundred years, though, is a Luddite 1D-10-T  (Army nomenclature).

Old article but still speaks to what you are talking about.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120723162707.htm

The global temperature changed naturally because of the changing solar radiation caused by variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun, Earth's tilt and the orientation of Earth's axis. These are called the Milankowitch cycles and occur in periods of approximately 100,000, 42,000, and 22,000 years. These are the cycles that cause Earth's climate to shift between long ice ages of approximately 100,000 years and warm interglacial periods, typically 10,000 -- 15,000 years. The natural warming of the climate was intensified by the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth's climate out of balance,"


Also interesting to note in this article how they talk about increased winds in areas of the antarctic.  Those winds btw also increase the amount of ice formed around the edges of the continent. Aka, the increased ice is the result of increased winds which are a result of increased warming.

[Red Arrow]

I wonder if any of us will live long enough to find out whether or not the earth's feedback is negative or positive.  (Oscillations or runaway)

[heironymouspasparagus]

I wonder if any of us will live long enough to find out whether or not the earth's feedback is negative or positive.  (Oscillations or runaway)

I think there is pretty good evidence from the last 400,000 years - the Vostok stuff - that is is negative.  The sinusoidal shapes point very strongly that way.  If it were positive, there should be 'flat' tops a lot of that time.  Or 'ringing' as in under-damped system.  One of these days, I want to try to find a point listing of the data to see if can run an FFT on it to see what that looks like.  Should be interesting!  Usually lots of 'hidden' information buried in those harmonics!

Did that change in the last 200 years?  Maybe what we are seeing is a positive feedback phenomenon from the sudden release of CO2.


Ice pack ebb and flow sidenote;
While I think the lunar cycle will always be the predominant flexing force on the planet, there may be a very long term flexing action due to build up and reduction of ice packs on the poles.  Flattening and releasing the planet to 'move' - imagine a gigantic pair of hands positioned on each pole pushing toward each other, then letting go.

Lunar motion is gonna be millimeters per tide, but ice pack movement could be meters to possibly kilometers.  Millimeters - would that generate enough friction/heat deep down to help keep the core molten?  That's a lot of friction....   Iron must be able to travel easily through a softer molten mass to get to the center....

[TheArtist]

I think there is pretty good evidence from the last 400,000 years - the Vostok stuff - that is is negative.  The sinusoidal shapes point very strongly that way.  If it were positive, there should be 'flat' tops a lot of that time.  Or 'ringing' as in under-damped system.  One of these days, I want to try to find a point listing of the data to see if can run an FFT on it to see what that looks like.  Should be interesting!  Usually lots of 'hidden' information buried in those harmonics!

Did that change in the last 200 years?  Maybe what we are seeing is a positive feedback phenomenon from the sudden release of CO2.


Ice pack ebb and flow sidenote;
While I think the lunar cycle will always be the predominant flexing force on the planet, there may be a very long term flexing action due to build up and reduction of ice packs on the poles.  Flattening and releasing the planet to 'move' - imagine a gigantic pair of hands positioned on each pole pushing toward each other, then letting go.

Lunar motion is gonna be millimeters per tide, but ice pack movement could be meters to possibly kilometers.  Millimeters - would that generate enough friction/heat deep down to help keep the core molten?  That's a lot of friction....   Iron must be able to travel easily through a softer molten mass to get to the center....

Oblate Spheroid, one of my favorite nerd phrases as a kid.     I know, I know, it's hard to imagine this cool, suave, sophisticated, man about town, as having once been a nerd.    

Oh, and you know what actually causes the earth to be an oblate spheroid?  Well all anyone has to do is look at a standard desk globe and then use scientific observation to deduce that it's caused by the constant pressure applied by the wing-nuts at the poles.  

I have plenty more science/nerd jokes I can regale you all with if you would like.

[Red Arrow]

I know, I know, it's hard to imagine this cool, suave, sophisticated, man about town, as having once been a nerd.

Once a nerd, always a nerd.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Oh, and you know what actually causes the earth to be an oblate spheroid?  Well all anyone has to do is look at a standard desk globe and then use scientific observation to deduce that it's caused by the constant pressure applied by the wing-nuts at the poles.  

They got Tea Party at the poles...!!!    I had no idea!  Learn something new every day!


Oh, wait...  THOSE wing-nuts...!   Sorry...

[guido911]

Needing some of that global warming right about now. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Oblate Spheroid, one of my favorite nerd phrases as a kid.     I know, I know, it's hard to imagine this cool, suave, sophisticated, man about town, as having once been a nerd.    

Oh, and you know what actually causes the earth to be an oblate spheroid?  Well all anyone has to do is look at a standard desk globe and then use scientific observation to deduce that it's caused by the constant pressure applied by the wing-nuts at the poles.  

I have plenty more science/nerd jokes I can regale you all with if you would like.

You should come visit our office some time... it is like a real life version of "Big Bang Theory"....well, without the cute girls...

We actually did a rough calculation of estimated daily deflection of the earth due to lunar action - since we have tidal information, there should be analogous crustal tides....we figure it is in millimeters....     We haven't gotten to the estimated heating effect due to that motion - the friction.  Would expect that it could be sizable.  Would it be big enough to keep the early core molten over a couple billion years?  My guess is yes - or at least contribute to it.  Maybe the other planets just needed a big moon for some flexing...


At the risk of 'quoting' wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide

[TheArtist]

Hmmm....   

Warmest oceans ever recorded

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm

[Hoss]

Hmmm....   

Warmest oceans ever recorded

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm

Naahh...that can't be!

[guido911]

Hmmm....   

Warmest oceans ever recorded

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm

LOVED this passage:

From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann's analysis of ocean temperature datasets

[heironymouspasparagus]

LOVED this passage:

There has been a lot of real scientists talking about that.  They seem to feel it is due to all the volcanoes we have seen erupting for those 10 years or so.  When the dust clears it should be interesting....if the temp starts back on the same tack, that presents some pretty strong evidence.  Dusty skies - level temps.  Clear skies - rising temps.  Just what is expected.

[Conan71]

I tracked Timmerman through at least ten different stories.  Not a single one quotes him quantifying how much the temperature rose.  We are just supposed to take it on summary alone the earth is burning down?  M'kay.  I noted other articles went so far as to prognosticating 50% more lightning strikes as a result with absolutely ZERO data to back it up.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I tracked Timmerman through at least ten different stories.  Not a single one quotes him quantifying how much the temperature rose.  We are just supposed to take it on summary alone the earth is burning down?  M'kay.  I noted other articles went so far as to prognosticating 50% more lightning strikes as a result with absolutely ZERO data to back it up.

Measuring lightning strikes seems like a relatively new technology (last few years - 15 or 20 maybe??).  Have you run across any info about past/present strike counts??  Just "watching/listening" to storms, I can't really tell a difference yet...