Moderated: Global Warming Discussion

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by mhaze

A classical case of argument from popularity, and it is being used precisely to avoid arguing the argument.

No, it’s just science. Papers are either convincing or they fall by the wayside.

BTW If you think a paper says something important it’s up to you to convince us of that, I have zero responsibility to disprove every crackpot idea someone has picked up on the internet.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by mhaze

A classical case of argument from popularity, and it is being used precisely to avoid arguing the argument.

I have never heard an actual scientist say anything like this.

I have. They don't waste time on garbage.

[refamat]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Volcanoes cool the planet due to the aerosols they spew into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gassed they emit is negligible.



What you are really saying that because temperature of the earth was warmer before long before humans existed, we don’t need to worry about it getting that warm again. This view is problematic for those of us who wish to see humans continue to exist…



At one time people were not sure the Earth orbited the Sun, and saying it “may not” could have been a valid argument. Now, of course we know better, just as we know humans are causing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to rise and that is causing the planet to warm.

The point I am trying to make is that humans have, over geological time, going to have a very small effect upon the planet climate wise. The planet will eventually correct itself after humans are gone, and exhibit climates controlled by physical processes. The planet has had average temperatures which were 20-30 degrees warmer than they are today.
We are still in an ice age, technically speaking. Ice ages end, temps go up. There is not enough data in yet to describe how long the end of an ice age might last (we are about 12,000 years into the start of the last ice age's decline and do not know when it might end) or how fast temperatures rise.
Making the statement that man is the cause of global warming is not scientific, even when there is evidence for some things being true when they always exclude any data on ice ages.

It's the same for the extinction of dinosaurs, there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line (this represents as much as 12 million years), the paleontologists argue this point, the astrophysicists say without any evidence, that an impactor killed the dinosaurs because of when it happened and some micro-fossils in the Caribbean show a mass die off of SOME microscopic lifeforms in that area at that time.

Until people (scientists) can put all the data together and without a doubt, rule out all but one item, pointing a finger at any one cause is bad science.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by lomiller

No, it’s just science. Papers are either convincing or they fall by the wayside.

BTW If you think a paper says something important it’s up to you to convince us of that, I have zero responsibility to disprove every crackpot idea someone has picked up on the internet.

Excellent point.

Scientific standing within a field of study isn't granted or recognized arbitrarily.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by macdoc

NOT attributing perpetuates the myth of these events being within the range of natural cycles -

Until a statistically significant trend can be established demonstrating that such is definitively and qualitatively unusual, then it isn't myth, but simply a statement of what is. In climate, that trend establishment period is measured in multiple decades at a minimum (for a reason).

I would certainly agree, that these anomalous conditions are most likely the early impacts of accelerating climate change, and certainly of the form and type that we are expecting to become more the norm in a warming climate, but calling them this at this time is "jumping the gun" and leaves us in the situation of being perceived as doing the same thing others are properly lambasted for, namely conflating weather with climate.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

I was hoping you had your own critique, but we can discuss this one.

First they seem to fall victim to the same mistakes they claim the authors did.

"This error is not relevant for the paper itself, and this paragraph is unnecessary, but it does tell me a few things: the authors did not consult with any climatologist"

The similar claim would be that the climatologists don't consult with statisticians. Tit for tat.

That was what the paper says, the climatologists didn't consult statisticians, that is why they wrote this paper. In writing it, they didn't consult with any climatologists, made fundamental mistakes, and so the paper is a waste of time.

[bit_pattern]

... And they STILL found an "80% chance that (1997-2006 rolling decade) was the warmest in the past thousand years". Go figure

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by refamat

...

It's the same for the extinction of dinosaurs, there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line (this represents as much as 12 million years), the paleontologists argue this point, the astrophysicists say without any evidence, that an impactor killed the dinosaurs because of when it happened and some micro-fossils in the Caribbean show a mass die off of SOME microscopic lifeforms in that area at that time.

Until people (scientists) can put all the data together and without a doubt, rule out all but one item, pointing a finger at any one cause is bad science.

Your point is made: You suggest a completely new epistemology for science, regarding GW and other matters. I'm interested in your point and I want to know more about some aspects: the role of unanimity and the definition of scientist if such an unanimity is needed. For example, you said "there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line" AND "(this represents as much as 12 million years)". I disagree with both assertions. Have you incurred in "bad science" according to the epistemology proposed? or am I not a scientist? Are you?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by refamat

The point I am trying to make is that humans have, over geological time, going to have a very small effect upon the planet climate wise. The planet will eventually correct itself after humans are gone, and exhibit climates controlled by physical processes. The planet has had average temperatures which were 20-30 degrees warmer than they are today.

This is entirely true. In a few million years there'll still be a world with life, even if we humans do go ballistic with our nuclear stockpile.

We will leave a mark to enquiring minds (such as ours own) simply through AGW. If modern geologists had something like this to look back on we would definitely detect an industrial society. The almost (but not quite) empty oil-reservoirs and coal-fields would be the first giveaway, but that would be initially controversial and so lead us deeper into the geography.

It might even answer an earlier question: why did the current series of Ice Ages stop for four or five hundred thousand years before kicking in again? ... but that's to get very speculative.

Quote:

Until people (scientists) can put all the data together and without a doubt, rule out all but one item, pointing a finger at any one cause is bad science.

The problem with Science (as opposed to obvious good sense) is that it's an absolute with cannot discard doubt. Scientists of good sense will take many things as proven simply in order to get some productive work done (and that scheme has worked remarkably well over the last few centuries), but in principle nothing is beyond doubt in Science.

None of us lives that way, of course. There are such things as the bleedin' obvious, beyond reasonable doubt, obective reality, and the ever-popular "Yeah, right, let us know how that works out for you ... ".

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

... And they STILL found an "80% chance that (1997-2006 rolling decade) was the warmest in the past thousand years". Go figure

Be very wary of that. They found that such estimates cannot be determined from proxy data - in fact, that nothing can be found from proxy data. This "80%" quote is a trap. Buy that and you buy the "Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today" with it.

What they have done is kill that idea. The ditto-heads won't care, they'll ditch the MWP as casually as they've ditched every other fashion. Without noticing, even.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by refamat

The point I am trying to make is that humans have, over geological time, going to have a very small effect upon the planet climate wise. The planet will eventually correct itself after humans are gone, and exhibit climates controlled by physical processes. The planet has had average temperatures which were 20-30 degrees warmer than they are today.
We are still in an ice age, technically speaking. Ice ages end, temps go up. There is not enough data in yet to describe how long the end of an ice age might last (we are about 12,000 years into the start of the last ice age's decline and do not know when it might end) or how fast temperatures rise.
Making the statement that man is the cause of global warming is not scientific, even when there is evidence for some things being true when they always exclude any data on ice ages.

It's the same for the extinction of dinosaurs, there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line (this represents as much as 12 million years), the paleontologists argue this point, the astrophysicists say without any evidence, that an impactor killed the dinosaurs because of when it happened and some micro-fossils in the Caribbean show a mass die off of SOME microscopic lifeforms in that area at that time.

Until people (scientists) can put all the data together and without a doubt, rule out all but one item, pointing a finger at any one cause is bad science.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. The planet doesn't 'correct itself'. Physical forces act, the result is a climate will be the end result of those forces. If it is conducive to life, and what kind of life that is, will be a result of evolution adapting to those conditions.

[refamat]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Your point is made: You suggest a completely new epistemology for science, regarding GW and other matters. I'm interested in your point and I want to know more about some aspects: the role of unanimity and the definition of scientist if such an unanimity is needed. For example, you said "there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line" AND "(this represents as much as 12 million years)". I disagree with both assertions. Have you incurred in "bad science" according to the epistemology proposed? or am I not a scientist? Are you?

well, the data I have is purely from paleontologists and their publications.
also, maybe you could explain this chart:

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

I never said I was a scientist, but, since fossil of dinosaurs (much less any other fossil either) is found immediately below [9-12 feet of rock is a lot of time) the K-T boundary, this suggests that the impactor was not the cause of the mass extinction.


the chart referenced above looks at CO2 levels up to today, the amounts are impressive..seems industrialization lags in amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere

[BenBurch]

Ummm, deposition rates over geologic time are not constant. Also, yes, there are fossils right up to the KT boundary in many places.

[a_unique_person]

Biocab has visited here in the past.

There is no direct link between CO2 and global temperature. There are other significant forcings as well, but these are not active at present. That is why the scientists have analysed the forcings and attributed the components accordingly as they now operate. It's all in the IPCC report. "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change".

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by refamat

well, the data I have is purely from paleontologists and their publications.
also, maybe you could explain this chart:

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

I never said I was a scientist, but, since fossil of dinosaurs (much less any other fossil either) is found immediately below [9-12 feet of rock is a lot of time) the K-T boundary, this suggests that the impactor was not the cause of the mass extinction.


the chart referenced above looks at CO2 levels up to today, the amounts are impressive..seems industrialization lags in amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere

Yes, it was hotter in the past. Yes, it was due to CO2. No, we don't want to go back to higher CO2 levels with higher temperatures. Yes, we can do something about it, if we act now.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by refamat

I never said I was a scientist, but, since fossil of dinosaurs (much less any other fossil either) is found immediately below [9-12 feet of rock is a lot of time) the K-T boundary, this suggests that the impactor was not the cause of the mass extinction.

Where exactly was this 9-12 feet of rock? Deposition rates vary by place as well as time.

There are, in fact, dinosaur fossils extant right up to the KT boundary. You can easily find reams of stuff about "What killed off the dinosaurs?", much of it very accessible to the non-expert. It's an interesting subject.

Quote:

the chart referenced above looks at CO2 levels up to today, the amounts are impressive..seems industrialization lags in amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere

Lags what, changes that occurred over millions of years? Industrial society has only had a couple of centuries to get its steam up (so to speak). It's had a pretty impressive impact in that time - over 30% increase in atmospheric CO2, and still rising, doesn't strike me as "laggardly".

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by refamat

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

Pseudoscience nonsense, a bit more tepid than some, but definitely not in accord with legitimate mainstream climate science data, evidences and understandings


http://biocab.org/Index.html

http://biocab.org/Holocene.html

http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html

http://biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geo...Timescale.html

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Ummm, deposition rates over geologic time are not constant. Also, yes, there are fossils right up to the KT boundary in many places.

In some places even above K-T boundary, though that is generally due to uplift and folding episodes that have disrupted the undisturbed sedimentary timeline.

[refamat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Ummm, deposition rates over geologic time are not constant. Also, yes, there are fossils right up to the KT boundary in many places.

no they are not. 9-12 feet could be 100,000 years or millions, but, you will have to provide proof that there are dinosaur fossil right up to the ky boundary because none of the books I've read say that.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by refamat

no they are not. 9-12 feet could be 100,000 years or millions, but, you will have to provide proof that there are dinosaur fossil right up to the ky boundary because none of the books I've read say that.

I've cut fossils (leafs) out of the two inches beneath the KT boundary myself.

[BadBoy]

This is on the from of the Daily Express in the UK today (obvious right wing rag)

CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...es-are-exposed

Quote:

THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

Does anyone know anything about this? going quickly through the article I cant make out if the IAC has made some claim over the last couple of days (i.e. news) or is it a headline about something that happened months ago? in which case the article is just another example of extreme bias. No wonder people are confused over this issue.

And on the front of the UK Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-change-u-turn

Quote:

The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.

Of course, the people who are going to buy the Express wont even look at the Guardian.

[BenBurch]

This new thread is in violation of this policy; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176636

[bozman]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

This new thread is in violation of this policy; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176636

Thank Jebus

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

This is on the from of the Daily Express in the UK today (obvious right wing rag)

CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...es-are-exposed




Does anyone know anything about this? going quickly through the article I cant make out if the IAC has made some claim over the last couple of days (i.e. news) or is it a headline about something that happened months ago? in which case the article is just another example of extreme bias. No wonder people are confused over this issue.

And on the front of the UK Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-change-u-turn


Of course, the people who are going to buy the Express wont even look at the Guardian.

The article is a lie from start to finish. The report does not say anything like the reporter spins it to say. It says the AGW science is fundamentally right, despite there being a few mistakes in it.

For example, the statement

Quote:

The Working Group II report, for example, contains some statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.

is correct.

the reporters spin that is taken from that statement becomes

Quote:

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

which is a complete misrepresentation. How does "Some" become an implied "All"?

Even then, it contradicts itself.

Quote:

The IAC report makes several recommendations to fortify IPCC’s management structure, including establishing an executive committee to act on the Panel’s behalf and ensure that an ongoing decision-making capability is maintained. To enhance its credibility and independence, the executive committee should include individuals from outside the IPCC or even outside the climate science community.

The head of the IPCC, Pauchauri, is exactly that, he is from outside the IPCC, and he is outside the climate science community. He was appointed because that is exactly the demand that was already made, and it was met.

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

This new thread is in violation of this policy; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176636

ah, sorry. Wasnt intentional.

[Trakar]

For those who are curious:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycounci...wsRelease.html

Not quite the same message delivered by the Express, but then, that's to be expected.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

And on the front of the UK Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-change-u-turn

Good o'le Lombard adapting to his niche market. Well done!

[Bpelta]

I read my first Skeptical Inquirer a month or two ago and the Letters to the Editor were upset that the SI was pushing global warming; IIRC and IIUC, the Inquirer authors had made pretty clear that global warming happened, it is caused by man, and that we can do something about it. Despite letters from skeptics -- including the head of Ontario Skeptics -- the article-writers were clear that the skeptic should accept the above mentioned assertions about global warming or otherwise he is being selective in his skepticism.

I saundered into my local library recently and was checking out Skeptic magazine and in the issue I was looking at, there was an article IIUC advocating the position that climate change skeptics should issue a lot of disclaimers and reject a lot of the craziness which FOX-styled anti-intellectuals (my words, not the author's, those were the types of people I was picturing when reading the article) promote, it is still fair to not believe in man-made climate change.

I don't have either of these magazines on me, but how should the skeptic layperson look at the issue of global warming? Is it fair to take positions taken by the "global warming skeptics" (e.g. global warming might not be so bad, nothing we do can help anyways, humans don't cause so much, all the stuff you hear on FOX or reading George Will or the Wall Street Journal, etc.)?

[StuBob]

That was a pretty good article in Skeptical Inquirer...I've shared it with several colleagues who, like me, don't have the time to become climate change experts. Actually, I don't feel the need to become an expert in climate change to understand the gist of the argument. When in doubt, I see what the scientific consensus is (and there does appear to be a consensus), and adopt that opinion unless I see clear, peer reviewed evidence to the contrary. Haven't seen any of that yet. What I do see is the climate change skeptics resorting to tactics used by creationists. Oh, can you pass the popcorn, CoolSceptic?

[MG1962]

I think there is a lot of merit in debating AGW. We do know that without any influence from man, the planet is in a warming phase. Accumulating date suggests man is speeding the procress. So a worthy debate point is....just how much are we adding to the situation.

The next debate point becomes. Even if man reduces his influence to zero, what exactly is going to change, can anything be reveresed. Can even natural climate change be slowed or stopped. Do we even want to try

In having debates I think the following red flags suggest the debate is probably ill fated from the get go

Government conspiracy, they are using this to scare us and make us do whatever the government agenda is

Scientist conspiracy. As above

Science funding - Scientists go along with the fraud so they can line their pockets with enormous research grants

[DC]

one should take the position that is supported by evidence.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Bpelta

I read my first Skeptical Inquirer a month or two ago and the Letters to the Editor were upset that the SI was pushing global warming; IIRC and IIUC, the Inquirer authors had made pretty clear that global warming happened, it is caused by man, and that we can do something about it. Despite letters from skeptics -- including the head of Ontario Skeptics -- the article-writers were clear that the skeptic should accept the above mentioned assertions about global warming or otherwise he is being selective in his skepticism.

I saundered into my local library recently and was checking out Skeptic magazine and in the issue I was looking at, there was an article IIUC advocating the position that climate change skeptics should issue a lot of disclaimers and reject a lot of the craziness which FOX-styled anti-intellectuals (my words, not the author's, those were the types of people I was picturing when reading the article) promote, it is still fair to not believe in man-made climate change.



I don't have either of these magazines on me, but how should the skeptic layperson look at the issue of global warming? Is it fair to take positions taken by the "global warming skeptics" (e.g. global warming might not be so bad, nothing we do can help anyways, humans don't cause so much, all the stuff you hear on FOX or reading George Will or the Wall Street Journal, etc.)?

You can always start with the IPCC report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Then evaluate the criticism and the counter arguments and then the follow up to those arguments.

[easycruise]

Well, it would help if the warmist alarmists would stop wildly extrapolating into the future.

IIRC, the earth has warmed approx. 1 degree F in the last 100-150 years, which included a cooling period or two. (never any mention of what the margin of error of that 1 degree reading is, but I digress). And it seems that recently (since the mid 1970's) it has warmed even more. Where the AGW proponents lose me is that they extrapolate this recent warming trend well into the future and make dire predictions about massive flooding and other calamities.

I work in the financial markets and these AGW proponents remind me of some predictions back in 2000 that the U.S. stock market was promptly going to 30,000 and "its different this time" and stocks no longer had to be valued on the earnings and other such nonsense.

What a laugh. There seems very little skepticism on the side of the AGW proponents that the current warming trend will keep going. I am such a skeptic.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by MG1962

I think there is a lot of merit in debating AGW. We do know that without any influence from man, the planet is in a warming phase.

Please support this assertion with cite and reference

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by easycruise

Well, it would help if the warmist alarmists would stop wildly extrapolating into the future.

What does the science say?

[macdoc]

Economics is not a science - but nice try...you analogy is useless.

From your post you are poorly read in current AGW science - you comment might be appropriate in the mid 90s

Start with the my signature and get yourself up to speed....the norm in a science forum is to provide support for a stance from science sources.
You have not supported your argument, which goes against the climate science consensus, and you have not iota of supporting backup.

Quote:

There seems very little skepticism on the side of the AGW proponents that the current warming trend will keep going.

Because you don't have the science understanding that the laws of physics are not whimsical.....we have put a higher carbon concentration that the planet has seen in 12 million years and carbon retains heat in earth's atmosphere.

it's not a random process, it a measured, observed process that has been understood in broad scope for over a century.

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/pat...s_11_13_07.htm

How fast the consequences of the warming will unfold and how frequent the extreme events t engenders is still very much under study.

No fairy godmother is going to come by and wave a wand and make it all better.
The carbon has been accumulating above the natural cycle for 300 years and it is cumulative..

Quote:

Published online: 20 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122
Carbon is forever

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0....2008.122.html

The hysterisis in the global energy budget is very high and buffered by the cryosphere and the hydrosphere with regards to transient impact on the atmosphere.

That same hysteresis tho means even if we stopped carbon emissions cold - another .6 degree C of warming would occur to reach energy budget equilibrium.

This is hard science in the traditional sense, not speculation junk from the economists wannabe scientists.

This physics. Perhaps you shuold try and catch up with where the science lies.
There is little skepticism ( none for practical purposes in the climate science community ) as AGW is a known understood physical phenomena like evolution.

Outcomes however and timing remain difficult to project, one reason being we do not know how well carbon limitations on emissions will be enforced.

So you end with a range of scenarios as MIT has undertaken.

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0519134843.htm

Massive flooding is a directly physical response to a warmer climate as a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour.

Tropical storms are heat engines so stronger storms ( if not more frequent ) are a physical consequence of increased ocean heat especially at the surface.

The science is not hard....and to be an AGW skeptic these days is akin to being an evolution skeptic.

What is IS very hard is to determine a policy of what to do about the carbon emissions.
Even the fossil companies knew the reality from their own scientists in the mid- 90s.

Quote:

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...deny.html?_r=2

Perhaps you missed the memo....

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Bpelta

...
I saundered into my local library recently and was checking out Skeptic magazine and in the issue I was looking at, there was an article IIUC advocating the position that climate change skeptics should issue a lot of disclaimers and reject a lot of the craziness which FOX-styled anti-intellectuals (my words, not the author's, those were the types of people I was picturing when reading the article) promote, it is still fair to not believe in man-made climate change.
...

The same Brin's article is here for everyone to read it.

[macdoc]

Quote:

I think there is a lot of merit in debating AGW. We do know that without any influence from man, the planet is in a warming phase

Umm wrong....the planet is actually drifting slowly into a cooler phase and that was shown in the Holocene temperature records and is confirmed by our orbital positioning in the Milankovich cycle.
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geo...1/milankov.htm

We would have been approaching the end of the interglacial but instead have likely cancelled or delayed at least one if not the next 5 glacial periods.

Quote:

Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels

ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2007) — Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.

Quote:

Next Ice Age Delayed by Global Warming, Study Says

Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News

September 3, 2009
Humans are putting the brakes on the next ice age, according to the most extensive study to date on Arctic climate change.
The Arctic may be warmer than it's been in the past 2,000 years—a trend that is reversing a natural cooling cycle dictated by a wobble in Earth's axis.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...g-ice-age.html

Quote:

Next Ice Age Delayed by Burning of Fossil Fuels

Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels, according to a new study released by researchers lead by Dr. Toby Tyrell at the University of South Hampton.

The current warming of the Earth is also blamed on the burning of fossil fuels.
The team used a mathematical model to predict what would happen.
Dr Tyrrell said, “Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result.”
Humanity has to date burnt about 300 gigatons of carbon of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000 gigatons are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about 4000 gigatons of carbon) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped.
Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.
Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years, due to the change in Earth’s orbit.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...ssil-fuels/251

So were in a cooling trend due to orbital configuration, not a warming trend as you stated without supporting evidence.

We have reversed that and in doing so delayed the end of the interglacial.

The debate is not in the reality of AGW - that was established a decade or more ago.

The debate is what to do about the reality of a warming world....and how not to make it far worse.

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by MG1962

I think there is a lot of merit in debating AGW. We do know that without any influence from man, the planet is in a warming phase.

Really? Which forcings are driving this warming phase? After all, the planet doesn't just magically warm and cool, something has to cause it to happen.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The same Brin's article is here for everyone to read it.

Brin's the man!

I occassionally disagree with him but, respect and admire his writings and considerations.

On to the Uplift revolution!!