Global warming caused by greenhouse gases delays natural patterns of glaciation

Jan 08, 2012 by Donna Hesterman

Unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are disrupting normal patterns of glaciation, according to a study co-authored by a University of Florida researcher and published online Jan. 8 in Nature Geoscience.

The Earth's current that began about 11,000 years ago should give way to another ice age within about 1,500 years, according to accepted astronomical models. However, current levels of are trapping too much heat in the atmosphere to allow the Earth to cool as it has in its prehistoric past in response to changes in Earth's orbital pattern. The research team, a collaboration among University College London, University of Cambridge and UF, said their data indicate that the next ice age will likely be delayed by tens of thousands of years.

That may sound like good news, but it probably isn't, said Jim Channell, distinguished professor of geology at UF and co-author.

"Ice sheets like those in western Antarctica are already destabilized by global warming," said Channell. "When they eventually slough off and become a part of the ocean's volume, it will have a dramatic effect on sea level." Ice sheets will continue to melt until the next phase of cooling begins in earnest.

The study looks at the prehistoric climate-change drivers of the past to project the onset of the next ice age. Using astronomical models that show Earth's orbital pattern with all of its fluctuations and wobbles over the last several million years, astronomers can calculate the amount of solar heat that has reached the Earth's atmosphere during past glacial and interglacial periods.

"We know from past records that Earth's orbital characteristics during our present interglacial period are a dead ringer for orbital characteristics in an 780,000 years ago," said Channell. The pattern suggests that our current period of warmth should be ending within about 1,500 years.

However, there is a much higher concentration of greenhouse gases trapping the sun's heat in the Earth's atmosphere now than there was in at least the last several million years, he said. So the cooling that would naturally occur due to changes in the Earth's orbital characteristics are unable to turn the temperature tide.

Over the past million years, the Earth's carbon dioxide levels, as recorded in ice core samples, have never reached more than 280 parts per million in the atmosphere. "We are now at 390 parts per million," Channell said. The sudden spike has occurred in the last 150 years.

For millions of years, carbon dioxide levels have ebbed and flowed between ice ages. Orbital patterns initiate periods of warming that cause ocean circulation to change. The changes cause carbon dioxide-rich water in the deep ocean to well up toward the surface where the carbon dioxide is released as a gas back into the atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide then drives further warming and eventually the orbital pattern shifts again and decreases the amount of that reaches the Earth.

"The problem is that now we have added to the total amount of CO2 cycling through the system by burning fossil fuels," said Channell. "The cooling forces can't keep up."

Channell said that the study, funded by the National Science Foundation in the U.S, and the Research Council of Norway and the Natural Environment Research Council in the United Kingdom, brings to the forefront the importance of atmospheric carbon dioxide because it shows the dramatic effect that it is having on a natural cycle that has controlled our Earth's climate for millions of years.

"We haven't seen this high concentration of in the atmosphere for several million years," Channell said. "All bets are off."

Explore further: NASA begins hurricane mission with Global Hawk flight to Cristobal

Related Stories

Ice core studies confirm accuracy of climate models

Sep 11, 2008

An analysis has been completed of the global carbon cycle and climate for a 70,000 year period in the most recent Ice Age, showing a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and surprisingly abrupt changes in ...

Cutting carbon dioxide helps prevent drying

Mar 24, 2011

Recent climate modeling has shown that reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would give the Earth a wetter climate in the short term. New research from Carnegie Global Ecology scientists Long Cao ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 114

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Telekinetic
4 / 5 (37) Jan 08, 2012
Before anyone refutes the findings of the National Science Foundation in the U.S., the research Council of Norway, and the Natural Environment Research Council in the U.K., preface your remarks with your credentials.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (31) Jan 08, 2012
preface your remarks with your credentials.

Aww, man... don't you know how anyone who can turn on a computer is automatically more qualified than some idiot 'scientist' who just had to study 10 years or more to get to the point of making contributions to human knowledge?

Pshaw.
Telekinetic
3.8 / 5 (24) Jan 08, 2012
Well, heck- all I got to do is step outside and see that ev'rythang's jes' fine and dandy! Mister bluebird on my shoulder...
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (49) Jan 08, 2012
While I distrust most "climate scientists" because they are just conning people and governments out of money using lies and fear-mongering ... if the following is true, you would have to be mentally retarded to not consider that good news.

"their data indicate that the next ice age will likely be delayed by tens of thousands of years"

The next ice age will kill 90% ore more of the current worlds population. Preventing it is a good thing.

Therefore burning coal and other fossil fuels is a good thing.

Yet ... the morons quoted in this story think preventing the next ice is a bad thing. They should be committed.
Telekinetic
3.9 / 5 (37) Jan 08, 2012
@NotParker:
These 'huckster' scientists could make a lot more money defending the corporations and industries that are creating all of this chaos. They are doing what their training and consciences tell them to do, which is to report their findings truthfully. You, on the other hand, prefer to be lied to by monied interests and commiserate with the other boozing slobs at the bar about the conspiracy to rob you of your freedom to destroy the planet.
RealScience
4.1 / 5 (25) Jan 08, 2012
@NotParker: Just because an ice age would be a very bad thing does not mean that the opposite is a good thing. Our civilization is adapted to our current climate and sea levels, so a major change in either direction would be bad.

While releasing enough CO2 to prevent an ice age would be very reasonable geoengineering, we appear to have ALREADY released more CO2 than is necessary for at least a few hundred years.

If the earth were to start cooling in spite of current CO2 levels, adding methane would be better than CO2 since it would disappear faster than CO2 when the climate swung toward warm again.

Perhaps in a few decades we will understand our climate well enough to manage it.
Telekinetic
3.4 / 5 (24) Jan 08, 2012
"Perhaps in a few decades we will understand our climate well enough to manage it." - RealScience

That's like seeing Pauline tied to the railroad tracks and saying, "I'll just study knot tying first to figure out how to undo those ropes." There isn't a minute left to lose.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (43) Jan 08, 2012
How about the governments killing off everyone over the age of 30. . .like they used to say, never trust anyone age 30 and over.
:) That's a lot of CO2 saved.
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (47) Jan 08, 2012
"Perhaps in a few decades we will understand our climate well enough to manage it." - RealScience

That's like seeing Pauline tied to the railroad tracks and saying, "I'll just study knot tying first to figure out how to undo those ropes." There isn't a minute left to lose.


You're not helping anyone by being Chicken Little.

Dairy Farms were extant for many hundreds of years (850-1350) in Greenland and Vineyards in Scotland, as well. Then it got too cold. It is still too cold.

So don't panic, you have at least until the planet warms up to, the temperatures that were normal 1000 years ago.

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson
Telekinetic
3.4 / 5 (23) Jan 08, 2012
"Dairy Farms-
Scotland has 200,000 dairy cows. Over a billion litres of milk are produced worth more than £230 million.
2,000 holdings have dairy cattle. 44% of the holdings have more than 100 head of cattle. These holdings have around 73% of the total herd.
Scotland has approximately 9% of the UK dairy herd. The UK has the third largest dairy herd in the EU after France and Germany, and the largest average herd size."

"Dairy Farms and Grape Vines were extant for many hundreds of years (850-1350) in Greenland and Scotland. Then it got too cold. It is still too cold." - Shootist
You just shot yourself in the foot.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (44) Jan 08, 2012
Greenland had dairy farms. Active dairy farms.

Scotland (and Newfoundland and Nova Scotia) had vineyards. Scotland had active commercial vineyards, the wine of which, Henry II bragged was better than any french wine.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (38) Jan 08, 2012
LOL. . .back in those days a lot of women had purple feet. Milk cows and beef cows are pretty hardy animals and can withstand low temps outdoors. They will either go into the woods to escape the wind or into a barn if one is available. Scotland has a breed of cattle that have long fur and they long fur warmer weather too.
:)
Telekinetic
3.5 / 5 (24) Jan 08, 2012
"Melting of Greenland's ice contributes to global sea-level rise. If the acceleration of uplift and the implied acceleration of melting continue, Greenland could soon become the largest contributor to global sea-level rise, said Yan Jiang of the University of Miami RSMAS and another co-author of the study.
"Greenland's ice melt is very important because it has a big impact on global sea-level rise," Jiang said. "We hope that our work reaches the general public and that this information is considered by policy makers."
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation and NASA."
Zippity doo-dah.
RealScience
4.5 / 5 (16) Jan 08, 2012
@Telekinetic: the comment "Perhaps in a few decades we will understand our climate well enough to manage it." referred to such measures as ice-age prevention if it is eventually needed. Until we reach such a level of knowledge, I support the precautionary principle of reducing our CO2, methane, soot, NF3, etc. emissions.

@Shootist - the ice in Greenland is currently retreating. Even if the climate stayed at its current temperature, the ice would continue receding for some time. And even if we did not further raise the CO2 level, the earth would continue warming for some time (the oceans take a long time to reach equilibrium). Whether under constant temperature or constant CO2 ice would recede further than during the medieval warm period is not known, but grazing in Greenland is not proof the the climate was warmer then. The best temperature proxies say ~1C warmer then, the best climate projections say we'll exceed that within 50 years.
Davecoolman
1.9 / 5 (32) Jan 08, 2012
WORLD TEMPERATURES ARE DOWN AND ALL BIG 5 AGW SITES AGREE.

Well, it took some time, but even GISS with their algorithm cant hide from reality too long. Here is the GISS decadal graph with trend. Flat line. If GISS shows this, you can be sure that our warming has abated.

@ http://www.woodfo...83/trend

@ University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA.
@ National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
@Hadley CRUT, a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK.
@ National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), USA.
@ NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
debolton
4.1 / 5 (18) Jan 08, 2012
Seems to me that we should be planting and replenishing our environment with trees and grasses that consume alot of CO2. Our good earth can heal its self if we go back and reconstruct the forests and grasslands.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (16) Jan 08, 2012
Seems to me that we should be planting and replenishing our environment with trees and grasses that consume alot of CO2.

Newsflash: Upon eating/decay plants get converted back into CO2 and water (unless they are sequestered in airtight conditions...which is not the norm). Plants are a zero sum game when it comes to CO2. Having more of them doesn't do anything to 'heal' the problem.

MR166
1.5 / 5 (30) Jan 08, 2012
So now, all of a sudden, we are entering a 1500 year cooling cycle that will no be quite as cold as it should be due to AGW. For tens of years now the computer models, which were written by the best climate scientists on the plant have predicted that we were only a few years away from a CO2 "Tipping Point" that the earth could never recover from. I suppose that they forgot to include orbital mechanics in their program.

A sane world would not waste trillions of dollars based on the results obtained from faulty software peddled by snake oil salesmen!!
Telekinetic
4.3 / 5 (18) Jan 08, 2012
5. Trees Are Carbon Sinks
To produce its food, a tree absorbs and locks away carbon dioxide in the wood, roots and leaves. Carbon dioxide is a global warming suspect. A forest is a carbon storage area or a "sink" that can lock up as much carbon as it produces. This locking-up process "stores" carbon as wood and not as an available "greenhouse" gas.
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (21) Jan 08, 2012
@MR166 - the article says that 1500 years FROM NOW we would be entering a cooling cycle.

A 'sane world' (or sane people) would take the precaution of reducing emissions while refining the models and increasing processing power until they did understand well enough to avoid both 'tipping points' (such as the potential release of gigatons of methane from clathrates) and ice ages.
Telekinetic
3.8 / 5 (26) Jan 08, 2012

A sane world would not waste trillions of dollars based on the results obtained from faulty software peddled by snake oil salesmen!!

Uh, that would be the Iraq-Afghanistan War you're speaking of.
deepsand
4 / 5 (25) Jan 08, 2012
To which snake oil salesmen do you refer?
Davecoolman
1.6 / 5 (26) Jan 08, 2012
The warmist have promoted land clearing and forest removed.

Their policy's caused villagers in Africa to be slaughtered for their land to grow biofuel crops. Palm oil plantations in the Far East. Corn prices causing higher food prices world wide = biofuels = less efficiency / mile = EPA bogas miles/gallon rating etc.. etc...
Toyota Prius lawsuits because they don't perform to the mileage promised and all battery packs that cost as much as $10'000 Battery packs dieing = huge Eco disposal problem'

The IPCC tells us in no uncertain terms, that the sun is much to constant to influence climate.

Humans are driving climate change.

The Minoan caused the Minoan Optimum. The Romans caused the Roman Optimum. The fall of Rome caused the Dark Ages. The Vikings caused the Medieval Optimum and the Renaissance caused the Little Ice Age. Now the Industrial Age has caused the Modern Optimum.

Oh the Horror, nothing like this as ever happened before, History is full of lying skeptics!!!!
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (77) Jan 08, 2012
This one is from 1895 (with a few modifications)

[paranoia]
As early as 1965-66 a conspiracy was entered into between the warmists of Europe and America.For nearly fifty years these conspirators have kept the people quarreling over less important matters while they have pursued with unrelenting zeal their one central purpose.Every device of treachery, every resource of statecraft, and every artifice known to the secret cabals of the UN's IPCC are being used to deal a blow to the prosperity of the people and the financial and commercial independence of the country.
[/paranoia]

"The Paranoid Style in American Politics"
http://karws.gso....yle.html
Davecoolman
1.5 / 5 (26) Jan 08, 2012
Every climate Scientists knows that when temperatures go up it is climate.

Only when they go down is it weather. A physicist tells us that temperatures are going up, so therefore it is climate by definition.

Are we clear on this? Increasing temperatures are climate. Decreasing temperatures are weather. Any change in the increase in temperature is therefore Climate Change.

Any change in the decrease in temperatures is Climate Disruption it is a disruption in climate change.

To summarize:

increase T = climate
decrease T = weather
delta increase T = climate change
delta decrease T = climate disruption.
deepsand
Jan 08, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eric_B
4.5 / 5 (16) Jan 08, 2012
DaveUn-CoolMan
Every grease covered, petro-shill knows that when it's cold in just one area of the planet, it's time for disingenuous gloating.

When it's HOT ALL OVER, the silence is glacial...
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (31) Jan 08, 2012
An important clue as to whether the next ice age is about to happen or not is sea level.

Sea Level is dropping. Not climbing. It should have kept climbing until our temperatures were as warm as the Medieval Warm Period.

That strongly implies the ice age is starting already and only massive use of fossil fuels is keeping temperature flat lined for the last 13 years.

Howhot
4 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2012
Statements of truth:

1) "that the sun is much to constant to influence climate. "

2) "Humans are driving climate change"

3) "the ice in Greenland is currently retreating."

4) "We are now at 390 parts per million" (and growing ed).

How many data points until the skeptics spontaneously combust from their treachery of allowing man made pollution to green house warm the planet to earths extinction. Screw you skeptics. You deserve nothing but scorn.
deepsand
Jan 09, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2012
I agree Deep. So let me add two additional quotations to ponder:

5) "The cooling forces can't keep up."

6) "We haven't seen this HIGH concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for SEVERAL MILLION YEARS"

7) "All bets are off".

All bets are off for any future Ice-age cooling. Screw you skeptics. You deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule.

rubberman
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2012
An important clue as to whether the next ice age is about to happen or not is sea level.

Sea Level is dropping. Not climbing. It should have kept climbing until our temperatures were as warm as the Medieval Warm Period.

That strongly implies the ice age is starting already and only massive use of fossil fuels is keeping temperature flat lined for the last 13 years.


Here is a link to help you understand the nature of sea level rise and fall, there are considerably more variables than the simple addition of melt water.
http://e360.yale....?id=2255

Here is the NASA satelite explanation for the single year drop in 2010....remarkably coinciding with a La Nina...go figure.
http://www.jpl.na...2011-262
Xbw
2 / 5 (20) Jan 09, 2012
I say we let John Hammond bring back dinosaurs if it is going to be so hot and sticky. I for one would love to ride a brontosaurus.
nononoplease
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2012
"That's like seeing Pauline tied to the railroad tracks and saying, 'I'll just study knot tying first to figure out how to undo those ropes.' There isn't a minute left to lose."

Yeah, JUST like that. We're all gonna die!

You're truly a moron.
Telekinetic
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2012
@nonoplease:
I am not as original as you, with your clever "You're truly a moron." I've never seen or heard that barb before you coined it. As to my allusion to 'The Perils of Pauline,' I am only parroting, again most unoriginal of me, the dire urgency conveyed by world-class climatologists to act immediately to reverse our deadly course.
But I realize to hurl epithets at you, such as "you're just a pustule in my crack", or "you have phlegm where there should be grey matter" would be for nought, since you're clearly the winner here.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (27) Jan 09, 2012
Sea Level is about the same as it was in 2004.

First measurement of each year.

2004.000625 .4881399 meters
2011.005073 .4907433 meters

2.6 millimeters difference in 7 years

Check the data yourself

ftp://ftp.aviso.o...just.txt

The warmenizers claim sea level will climb 1000mm in 100 years.

Thats 10mm a year. Instead it only rose 2.6mm in 7 years.

Sea level is lower than it was in 2005.
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2012
Well sea level rise is something that can be calculated. Satellites tell use how much much snow is sitting on Greenland, the Antarctic, and all around the Russian Siberia. Estimate the snow density and add that volume of water to the oceans. If you do the math, It a huge amount of sea level rise. A 1 meter rise is not out the question.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (26) Jan 10, 2012
A 1 meter rise is not out the question.


Sea Level has risen 14 meters in last 8000 years.

Sea Level has risen very little in last 2000 years, which implies the Holocene is almost over. And then ice age returns and most of us die.

http://www.global...evel_png

Howhot
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 10, 2012
Good reference site NotParker. However, it refutes your claim "Sea Level has risen very little in last 2000 years". Just the opposite from what I see.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (24) Jan 11, 2012
Good reference site NotParker. However, it refutes your claim "Sea Level has risen very little in last 2000 years". Just the opposite from what I see.


130 meters in last 20,000 years.

versus

Less than 1 meter in last 2000.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (25) Jan 11, 2012
Well sea level rise is something that can be calculated. Satellites tell use how much much snow is sitting on Greenland, the Antarctic, and all around the Russian Siberia. Estimate the snow density and add that volume of water to the oceans. If you do the math, It a huge amount of sea level rise. A 1 meter rise is not out the question.


"Greenland is approaching a condition of year-around complete snow cover."

http://notrickszo...and3.gif

http://notrickszo...g-white/

Ice Age is coming.
MarkyMark
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 12, 2012
Well sea level rise is something that can be calculated. Satellites tell use how much much snow is sitting on Greenland, the Antarctic, and all around the Russian Siberia. Estimate the snow density and add that volume of water to the oceans. If you do the math, It a huge amount of sea level rise. A 1 meter rise is not out the question.


"Greenland is approaching a condition of year-around complete snow cover."

http://notrickszo...and3.gif

Ice Age is coming.

Err yea great 'evidence' there lol.

Try a more mainstream source with proper data and graphs. NOT a site thats basically a unrepentant biassed one made for Tea Party Tools.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2012
Every climate Scientists knows that when temperatures go up it is climate.

Only when they go down is it weather.

Evereone knows that this is what you believe what climate scientists think (and it is obvious that you have never met one and have never read anything that they publish).

Climate scientists, on the other hand, have actually studied meteorology and climatology and know the difference between the two.
NotParker
1.2 / 5 (21) Jan 12, 2012
Try a more mainstream source with proper data and graphs.


The graph is from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, considered one of the most definitive places to look at snow cover data.

http://climate.ru...owcover/

NOAA uses them as a source.

http://www.arctic...ow.shtml

Howhot
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2012
From the article:
Over the past million years, the Earth's carbon dioxide levels, as recorded in ice core samples, have never reached more than 280 parts per million in the atmosphere. "We are now at 390 parts per million," Channell said. The sudden spike has occurred in the last 150 years.


That is just INCREDIBLE as well as dangerous and stupid for the Human race to even tempt the earth for a response to that recklessness.

Bur people like Dave-Uncool what you to believe their childish view of things with blinders on. Just like a kid holding his ears and saying "Lalalalalalala"

ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (34) Jan 13, 2012
From the article:
Over the past million years, the Earth's carbon dioxide levels, as recorded in ice core samples, have never reached more than 280 parts per million in the atmosphere. "We are now at 390 parts per million," Channell said. The sudden spike has occurred in the last 150 years.


That is just INCREDIBLE as well as dangerous and stupid for the Human race to even tempt the earth for a response to that recklessness.

Bur people like Dave-Uncool what you to believe their childish view of things with blinders on. Just like a kid holding his ears and saying "Lalalalalalala"


The earth is much older than 1 million years. CO2 levels of 7000ppm have been reported millions of years ago. So?
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (20) Jan 14, 2012
Earth also once had no atmosphere. Was that also conducive to life as we know it?

Perhaps, R2, you've prefer to live under the conditions of millions of years ago?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 14, 2012
"Sea Level is dropping. Not climbing." - ParketTard

Liar

http://www.jpl.na...-640.jpg
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 14, 2012
"The earth is much older than 1 million years. CO2 levels of 7000ppm have been reported millions of years ago" - RyggTard

You must be referring to 500 million years ago (possibly never)

http://www.global...xide.png

500 million years ago, land plants had not yet evolved, and fish didn't arrive on the scene until those CO2 levels had dropped.

Once again Libertarian RyggTard is found to be disingenuous.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2012
""Greenland is approaching a condition of year-around complete snow cover."" - ParkerTard

Extreme Melting On Greenland Ice Sheet, Team Reports; Glacial Melt Cycle Could Become Self-Amplifying

http://www.scienc...3128.htm

NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High

http://www.nasa.g...igh.html
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2012
Greenland ice melt sets a record

http://blogs.reut...el-rise/

ParketTard seems to have a need to tell many lies.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (34) Jan 14, 2012
"Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."
"in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, "

http://www.geocra...ate.html
ZachB
2.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2012
How sure can they be that these levels are unprecedented? How do we get co2 core samples of ice over 290ppm, if co2 concentrations over 290ppm cause polar ice to melt?
Do they really have enough data to draw any conclusions to justify extremely radical proposals to prevent global warming?
I don't know. I'm guessing that no matter what happens, humans will survive to see an apocalyptic future involving a clash of rayguns and flint-tipped arrows.
RealScience
4.5 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2012
@ryggesogn2 - the sun was also not as hot back then.
The sun is a main-sequence star, and these slowly get hotter as they age.
If we could move the earth 25 meters per year further from the sun, we'd balance the effect of the aging of the sun.
If we could move the earth a few tens of millions of kilometers further from the sun, we could dig up all that buried carbon and return it to the ecosystem.

The problem is that we are digging up the carbon WITHOUT counterbalancing the aging of the sun. This is no problem for the earth, which has seen far bigger changes. It is a problem for our civilization since that is adapted to current conditions.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 14, 2012
If you have record snow, there is more to melt. Anyone with a brain can understand that.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (23) Jan 14, 2012
6mm drop in 2010 from the references. Thats a drop. Which climate "scientist" predicted such a massive drop?

How can there be record melt when sea level is rising ... oh right, it is the models that show what they want to see, not reality.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (23) Jan 14, 2012
The problem is that we are digging up the carbon WITHOUT counterbalancing the aging of the sun. This is no problem for the earth, which has seen far bigger changes. It is a problem for our civilization since that is adapted to current conditions.


The coming Ice will kill most of us, so no worries.
DrSki
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2012
GLOBAL WARMING PEOPLE!
PLEASE - understand that the general populace can begin to ignore important issues when innaccurate general statements are proclaimed. IF you would PLEASE add-in that you understand that the sun DOES fluctuate in its intensity, and the NASA data showing "global" warming on MARS could be extrapolated to help account for fluctuation in the solar output, THEN perhaps a rational discourse could occur.

LOGIC first. (and second, and third.....)
kaasinees
3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2012
I am not sure about this , no source, but the russian snow is also melting away. That means more greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere. Its only a matter of time before so much water get vaporized the earth will be in a blanket of clouds maybe inducing global cooling? The clouds will stay up there because of the heat of the sun.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2012
GLOBAL WARMING PEOPLE!

It's os funny that ONLY in the US does the public (not the scientific community, mind) deny global warming. And the US isn't exactly known for having the most scientifically literate public.

This should tell you a lot where that notion comes from. It certainly isn't 'deep understanding of the subject'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (24) Jan 14, 2012
GLOBAL WARMING PEOPLE!

It's os funny that ONLY in the US does the public (not the scientific community, mind) deny global warming. And the US isn't exactly known for having the most scientifically literate public.

This should tell you a lot where that notion comes from. It certainly isn't 'deep understanding of the subject'.

A fine example of a govt/union monopoly on education.
dabnabit
2 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2012
I vote for a warmer climate. I have noticed that my garden doesn't grow so well in the winter.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (27) Jan 14, 2012
Oh Canada!

Canada rejected proposal at the UN's annual global warming summit in RSA.

I am sure this will contribute to their growing economy.

Another country that acknowledges the failure of socialism.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2012
So what?

Our current ecosphere is adapted to current conditions, not those of eons ago.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (27) Jan 14, 2012
So what?

Our current ecosphere is adapted to current conditions, not those of eons ago.

How did the ecosystem get to here from eons ago? It adapted.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2012
Which has what to do with the current ecosphere and what will happen to it if the present conditions change significantly?

And, don't even think about the silly evasive "it'll adapt" comeback.
Sanescience
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2012
And the sport of righteousness plays out while most people of the world don't care because they barely scrape by as it is. Global warming is the concern of the 1% who know they will have food and shelter in the future.

But go ahead and ignore the growing population let alone the imbalance of population density. Make your plans for green tech and geo engineering because surely a geometric growth rate of humans couldn't end badly...
toyo
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
These 'huckster' scientists could make a lot more money defending the corporations and industries that are creating all of this chaos.

Making these silly and unproven remarks marks you out for what you are.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 15, 2012
The "'huckster' scientists" are making a lot of money "defending the corporations and industries that are creating all of this chaos."

Wake up and smell the coffee.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (28) Jan 15, 2012
Which has what to do with the current ecosphere and what will happen to it if the present conditions change significantly?

And, don't even think about the silly evasive "it'll adapt" comeback.

Ecology ALWAYS adapts.
The only thing certain about climate is change and that is the only certain response humans can have, adapt or die.
And you socialists fight so hard to sell evolution. Do you believe in it?
RealScience
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2012
@ryggesogn2 - of course the ecology would adapt. But major adaptations involve a lot of death of life forms and even entire species, and being dead can ruin your whole day.

We need to understand our impact, and until we do we should use the precautionary principle.

Socialists selling evolution? Have you forgotten history? The soviet agriculture stagnated because they rejected genetics and evolution (until Khrushchev brought back American corn) ) and Mao starving tens of millions in his 'great leap forward' was similar anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-genetics socialism.
NotParker
1 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2012
How do you adapt to an ice age that is inevitable?

Well, if CO2 really does make the planet warmer (which has been disproven over the last 14 years) then you make sure there is lots in the atmosphere.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2012
The only thing disproved, NP, is your understanding of Physics. And that was accomplished in far less than 14 yr.. :rolleyes:
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (28) Jan 15, 2012
We need to understand our impact, and until we do we should use the precautionary principle.

What is the impact of restricting the world's ability to become more technically advanced and capable of adapting and improving efficiencies? That is the current plan of the AGWites: punish economic growth and innovation and promote socialism, more govt control.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2012
What is the impact of consuming all within reach, while shitting in ones own cradle?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (26) Jan 15, 2012
What is the impact of consuming all within reach, while shitting in ones own cradle?

You mean like the socialist, centrally planned govts do and have done?
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2012
Good one R2:

A fine example of a govt/union monopoly on education.


Or lack there of.

That is the current plan of the AGWites: punish economic growth and innovation and promote socialism, more govt control.


Huh? See above.

And you socialists fight so hard to sell evolution. Do you believe in it?


I for one do!

deepsand
4.1 / 5 (27) Jan 15, 2012
Silly rabbit.

You know just what I meant, and we both know it.

Feigned ignorance and other pretenses just won't work.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (26) Jan 15, 2012
Silly rabbit.

You know just what I meant, and we both know it.

Feigned ignorance and other pretenses just won't work.

Trouble is you don't understand what you mean. Property rights and capitalism are have been proven to be the best way to make most efficiency use of resources and to keep the environment clean. And you oppose property rights and free markets.
The AGWite solution is central planning/socialism which has been proven to fail to use resources most efficiently and to keep the environment clean.
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (25) Jan 16, 2012
Bullshit.

Human greed holds sway no matter the political economic system.

Laissez-faire markets simply make it easier for it to thrive.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2012
What is the impact of consuming all within reach, while shitting in ones own cradle?


Is that YOUR plan?
deepsand
3.9 / 5 (25) Jan 16, 2012
You really are dense, aren't you.
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2012
@ryggesogn2: Don't you dare call me a socialist. Wash your mouth out with soap!
I am far closer to a libertarian than to a socialist.

But regardless of my politics, humans are adding CO2 to the air, and my politics don't change the absorption spectrum of CO2.

The effect of my politics is that I think that the best way to address this is to calculate the external cost of excess CO2 emissions and apply that cost to CO2 emissions, and use the proceeds to sequester the excess CO2. I would prefer the free market to do this because it is more efficient.

However energy is currently far from being a free market that includes external costs. Unfortunately it will probably take the threat of governments stepping in to get the free market to fix the problem (just as it did with CFCs and the ozone layer).
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (25) Jan 16, 2012
Bullshit.

Human greed holds sway no matter the political economic system.

Laissez-faire markets simply make it easier for it to thrive.


No, it is socialism that enables the greed of a few to seize state power and grant favors to their friends.
In a free market, millions of individuals make millions of decisions they perceive that are in their self-interest.
If the govt truly protects everyone's property rights, then you can use stop anyone from polluting your air and your water.
But that becomes too difficult for statists and those that pollute collude with the state to allow pollution without compensation.
This enabled the pollution of the Cuyahoga river and its infamous fires. After all, the city needed the tax revenues from the businesses polluting the river. Same for Love Canal. The city wanted the tax revenue so it built houses over a toxic waste dump. This is the fault of the GOVT, not the waste producer.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (25) Jan 16, 2012
But regardless of my politics, humans are adding CO2 to the air, and my politics don't change the absorption spectrum of CO2.

So what?
How much energy does CO2 absorb? What bands?
How much CO2 is being added by human activity?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (24) Jan 16, 2012
Sandy, show how socialism promotes a clean environment.
Here is how markets do it:
"markets are actually very effective at allocating resources and in insuring sustainability--provided that those resources are marketed. "
"markets also give investors an incentive to look at the long term. If they invest in a factory and then let the factory deteriorate, they won't get much for it if they decide to sell it."
"Which is more short sighted: markets or government? The average elected official has a time horizon of two to four--or at most six--years. A typical market-driven company may have a time horizon in decades. That may not seem long to ecologists, but it is far better than a two-year horizon."
"If you want to protect a resource through coercion, the likely result will be violence and generations of resentment against that resource."
{Coercion is the only way socialists know.}
http://www.ti.org/faqs.html
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2012
@ryggsogn2: Here is a good basic article on the absorption by CO2, including its absorption spectrum, the spectrum of water vapor, the earth's infrared radiation, and the difference that CO2 makes.
http://www.oociti...ect.html
The DIRECT effect of CO2 has been known for over 100 years, and can be demonstrated in a college physics lab.

What is not known are the INDIRECT effects of that warming on water vapor and clouds. Current climate models indicate that the effects of CO2 are amplified several times by the warmth from CO2 increasing water vapor, but the exact amount is unknown and the effects of clouds are an even bigger unknown.

Also known is the gradual hundreds-of-millions-of-years increase in the temperature of the sun and the ~0.1% variability in the solar constant over the last few decades. What is NOT known is the variability over hundreds of years to millions of years, although C14 data put a few-percent limit on it.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (24) Jan 16, 2012

What is not known are the INDIRECT effects of that warming on water vapor and clouds. Current climate models indicate that the effects of CO2 are amplified several times by the warmth from CO2 increasing water vapor, but the exact amount is unknown and the effects of clouds are an even bigger unknown.


How can this model represent an emergent system? It can't.
Bottom line is CO2 is an easy gas to measure and all the unknowns are abstracted away.
CO2 has few very narrow absorption bands. The amount of energy absorbed is small.
If CO2 was the culprit, it would be very easy to measure over dry deserts. Heat radiates into space very quickly at night with a dry atm. A temp difference of up to 40deg F is observed. Has this changed? It should if CO2 is so significant.
But CO2 is not that significant. H2O is but it is very difficult to model. So, blame CO2. Correlation is not causation, and CO2 is 'bad' because it is released by burning fossil fuels.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (25) Jan 16, 2012
the INDIRECT effects of that warming on water vapor and clouds.

How about the direct effects?
H2O has many, very broad IR absorption bands.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (25) Jan 16, 2012
This morning on Kathy Lee's show an animal expert said that animals don't adapt well to the cold.
Is it a coincidence so many new species are discovered in tropical rainforests?

My ancestors followed the retreating glaciers and I believe they benefited from adapting to the cold by having to plan. They had to plan for winter or starve.
Howhot
4.8 / 5 (17) Jan 16, 2012
Trust me R2, all the wiggling and squirming is going to be fine when you realize, you now know more that half of the other people around you. Look at like the Gulf Oil Spill. A bunch of slackers can make it rich if they can pump oil from bottom of the ocean. They hire a bunch of goons who then punch a hole they can't seal.

It's the same thing with CO2 and the atmosphere. Polluting the atmosphere is big money.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (25) Jan 16, 2012
Trust me R2, all the wiggling and squirming is going to be fine when you realize, you now know more that half of the other people around you. Look at like the Gulf Oil Spill. A bunch of slackers can make it rich if they can pump oil from bottom of the ocean. They hire a bunch of goons who then punch a hole they can't seal.

It's the same thing with CO2 and the atmosphere. Polluting the atmosphere is big money.

And why should the socialists be trusted? After all, the oil leases on in the Gulf of Mexico are sold by the US Govt. The US Govt earns billions from those leases and from the taxes generated.
Socialists want in on the action? Or are they too pure? They will just sell their votes to socialists like Obama to keep him in power. Why do you trust Obama after you vote for him? He won't need you any more but he will want more money.
Howhot
4.8 / 5 (17) Jan 17, 2012
And why should the socialists be trusted?


Why should the conservatives (or what ever flavor of contrarian you are) be trusted? I wouldn't trust them either. And the other comments you made about Obama are worthless.

The point with regards to deep water drilling, it's very much like running a nuclear reactor. It's a sophisticated technology that works well in it's design parameters. And just like a nuclear reactor, if something goes wrong, it can quickly change from an localized property destruction to scales the size of the gulf. One nuclear plant has the potential to make un-inhabitable an area the size Pennsylvania. One deep sea oil well could do the equivalent damage to its location on that scale (as we saw happen in the Deepwater Horizons disaster).

If you want these potentially dangerous business in operation, they need a level of regulation that is beyond a typical business. They need to be regulated for the safety of everyone. That is just common sense.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (27) Jan 18, 2012
If you want these potentially dangerous business in operation, they need a level of regulation that is beyond a typical business.

Why do you trust any govt agency to regulate? What does the govt agency have to lose when they fail? The SEC failed to stop Madoff for 10 years. They are still in business. The Japanese govt failed, they are still in business.
Arthur Anderson failed, they are OUT of business.
If BP and other companies can be sued out of business for failure, do you think they would be motivated to minimize risk?
deepsand
4 / 5 (25) Jan 18, 2012
That the Sheriff may be ineffective stands as proof that the outlaws are effectively self-regulating? :rolleyes:
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (26) Jan 18, 2012
That the Sheriff may be ineffective stands as proof that the outlaws are effectively self-regulating? :rolleyes:

Self regulation occurs when it is in everyone's self-interest.
If everyone who suffered any damage from the spill could sue BP, BP would have millions of lawsuits to deal with. Why don't they have to deal with millions of lawsuits? They are protected by the govt.
Why can't millions of victims easily sue? Govt.
Why do you believe govt has any motivation to change the system?
deepsand
4 / 5 (25) Jan 18, 2012
Nothing is ever in "everyone's self-interest."

Those with the greater powers impose their wills on others so as to advance their own self-interests. Less powerful individuals cannot stand to defend against all such.

The core purpose of government is to do that which the individuals would do on the whole, given the means, but cannot do for lack of such.

Seeker2
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
Upon eating/decay plants get converted back into CO2 and water
I thought there was nitrogen in there somewhere.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2012
Nothing is ever in "everyone's self-interest."

Those with the greater powers impose their wills on others so as to advance their own self-interests. Less powerful individuals cannot stand to defend against all such.

The core purpose of government is to do that which the individuals would do on the whole, given the means, but cannot do for lack of such.


The core purpose of govt is to protect every individuals right to pursue his self interest, to protect every individual's property rights.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
"Someone earning money by his own labor benefits himself. Unknowingly, he also benefits society, because to earn income on his labor in a competitive market, he must produce something others value." http://www.econli...ith.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2012
The core purpose of government is to do that which the individuals would do on the whole, given the means, but cannot do for lack of such.

Who decides what billions of individuals would do if 'given' the means?

In China:

"Many people feel that too little of the countrys spectacular growth is trickling down to them. Migrant workers who seek employment in the city are treated as second-class citizens, with poor access to health care and education. Land grabs by local officials are a huge source of anger. Unrestrained industrialisation is poisoning crops and people. Growing corruption is causing fury. And angry people can talk to each other, as they never could before, through the internet."
"That bias towards control is understandable, and not merely self-interested. Patriots can plausibly argue that most people have plenty of space to live as individuals and value stability more than rights and freedoms"
http://www.econom...21543537
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
An important clue as to whether the next ice age is about to happen or not is sea level.

Sea Level is dropping. Not climbing.
Could be. I heard rumblings about the Great Lakes drying up so tankers can't carry full loads into port. Anyway higher water temps mean more humidity and record floods and storms. And in some cases prolonged drought.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
The warmenizers claim sea level will climb 1000mm in 100 years.

Thats 10mm a year. Instead it only rose 2.6mm in 7 years.

Sea level is lower than it was in 2005.
I think the warmenizers forgot more evaporation with warmer ocean temps. Melting glaciers would only add about 10% of their volume to water but the increase in water surface means more evaporation. So if or when the arctic melts we may have the equivalent of another ocean to drive our weather. So you might just as well expect another 15% increase in storms, hurricanes, or whatever. Except it seems that the increase in snow cover is much greater.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012
Sea Level has risen very little in last 2000 years, which implies the Holocene is almost over. And then ice age returns and most of us die.
Yes I don't expect to be around that long. So anyway you either suffocate or freeze to death. We seem to have survived freezing. Now let's see how it works with suffocation.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
The core purpose of govt is to protect every individuals right to pursue his self interest, to protect every individual's property rights.
Perhaps the individual himself needs protection. Especially from ignorance and needless suffering.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2012
The core purpose of govt is to protect every individuals right to pursue his self interest, to protect every individual's property rights.
Perhaps the individual himself needs protection. Especially from ignorance and needless suffering.

From the socialist state? The 'citizens' of North Korea are very well protected. They don't even have to worry about cell phones anymore.

Why would you want to reward ignorance? What is 'needless suffering'? How does socialism protect against 'needless suffering'?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2012
Sea Level has risen very little in last 2000 years, which implies the Holocene is almost over. And then ice age returns and most of us die.
Yes I don't expect to be around that long. So anyway you either suffocate or freeze to death. We seem to have survived freezing. Now let's see how it works with suffocation.

Suffocate from what?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
Note ignorance is not stupidity, only a conscious decision to ignore the consequences.

My ancestors followed the retreating glaciers and I believe they benefited from adapting to the cold by having to plan.
Note the ancestors of native North Americans only had to walk across the Pacific along the Aleutian trench to reach North America before the glaciers melted. Maybe even the Bering Sea.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
Perhaps the individual himself needs protection. Especially from ignorance and needless suffering.

From the socialist state?
From oppression. Read the U.S. constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The 'citizens' of North Korea are very well protected. They don't even have to worry about cell phones anymore.
They only have to worry about not crying when their leader dies. I get your point.

Why would you want to reward ignorance?
Stumped me on that one. What gave you that impression?
What is 'needless suffering'? Anything deterring a better quality of life. Again, read the Declaration of Indepence and Constitution.
How does socialism protect against 'needless suffering'?
I didn't know that. Whatever contributes to a better way of life. There used to be a preacher many years ago who talked about having life and having it more abundantly. We can always wish I guess. I just hate to see us throw away our chances with ignorance of AG
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
One more time:
What is 'needless suffering'?
Anything deterring a better quality of life. Again, read the Declaration of Indepence and Constitution.

How does socialism protect against 'needless suffering'?

I didn't know that. Whatever contributes to a better way of life. There used to be a preacher many years ago who talked about having life and having it more abundantly. We can always wish I guess. I just hate to see us throw away our chances with ignorance of AGW.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2012
Anything deterring a better quality of life.

Like the "Form of Government (which)becomes destructive of these ends," which we now have?
From oppression.
Who protects the individual from state oppression?
ignorance of AGW.

Like the IPCC?
"Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans not CO2 caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997."

Read more: http://www.dailym...ktlhPboO
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
Sea Level has risen very little in last 2000 years, which implies the Holocene is almost over. And then ice age returns and most of us die.
Yes I don't expect to be around that long. So anyway you either suffocate or freeze to death. We seem to have survived freezing. Now let's see how it works with suffocation.

Suffocate from what?

Creeping ignorance.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2012
Whatever contributes to a better way of life.

Like free markets and private property rights?

Has Greek socialism contributed to a better way of life? The govt is bankrupt as are many socialist govts today.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
Anything deterring a better quality of life.
Like the "Form of Government (which)becomes destructive of these ends," which we now have?
So are you an Occupy Wall Street protester?

From oppression.
Who protects the individual from state oppression?


Those, hopefully educated, who vote.

ignorance of AGW.

Like the IPCC?
"Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans not CO2 caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997."
Probably true. CO2 causes the warming oceans.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012
R2 you have a very Libertarian ideology, that on occasion everyone agrees with, but mostly what you say is absurd. On property rights you must live on the Atlantic shores of SC where sea level rise from AGW will flood the land, make it salty. Fine then. No government handouts.

Just don't come to US Government for a handout when your out when you internet is gone because at&t owns you and blackmails you for $150 for a 19.2K land-connection without DSL cause you live in the country.

Yeah, that's the life without Government regulation.

Anyway R2 your position on AGW is stupid. You just aren't seeing the science for what it is. Its a declaration by scientists (not government) as to the human condition and the condition of the world's environment. Nothing evil there R2.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2012
Just don't come to US Government for a handout when your out when you internet is gone because at&t owns you and blackmails you for $150 for a 19.2K land-connection without DSL cause you live in the country.

What?
The federal govt already heavily regulates the communications industry. If the regulations were removed, there may be competition for internet service in rural areas.
I live in a semi-rural area. I have one cable company choice, two cable satellites, and ATT, and wireless.
But there are at least three cable companies in the area. Why can't I choose? Local govts sell franchises to these companies limiting competition.
If you don't like a rural area, move.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2012
On property rights you must live on the Atlantic shores of SC where sea level rise from AGW will flood the land, make it salty.

You think those huge beach houses should be bailed out by the govt?
They can buy insurance like everyone else.
But the federal govt is the ONLY provider of flood insurance.
If owners and builders had to depend upon private flood insurance and there was NO chance of any govt bailout, I suspect property prices would be quite different in high risk zones like the entire eastern seaboard and New Orleans.