global warning update.

[Curval]

It is arbitary.  I said so when I responded to you.

You need to start SOMETIME before the IR to get a trend leading up to it, then go to the present to see the trend since.  160,000 years distorts the time nearer to the present.

[AlGorithm]

From your link;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.

This is a classic case of seeing what you want to see. Nowhere in the article does it say that CO2 emissions were ever as high as they are now.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by john9001
the Alaskan Pipeline was built ABOVE the  permafrost, to keep from melting it and to allow the migration of caribou.

In most cases^^

Some of it is buried.

Selection — Soil sampling and other means were used to determine soil types along the route. Where thaw-stable soils were found, the pipeline was buried in the conventional manner. In areas of thaw-unstable soils, and where heat from the oil in the pipeline might cause thawing and consequent loss of soil foundation stability, the pipeline was insulated and elevated above ground by means of a unique support system.

Basic types and miles of each

[Ripsnort]

Incidently, Trees are responsible for 25% of the worlds methane:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm

So maybe we should start defoliation of the all world's forests first!

[lukster]

Originally posted by Curval
See?  The graph is so poorly done we can't even agree on what we see.  We are only interested in the past 5,000 years (to determine if there is any global warming effect due to the industrial revolution)...but instead of detail we get a graph that begins 160,000 years ago.  Why?  Because it backs up their argument better.

Argument? I didn't see an argument or a conclusion at that link, only data.

[Angus]

RIP:
"Incidently, Trees are responsible for 25% of the worlds methane"

You forget the rest.....Trees as other growing vegetation that binds charbon and buries it into the ground in time, are the tools against greenhouse gas emission.

What are greenhouse gases? CO2, Methane, and where hot enough, WATER. Give a wee more heat, and you'll have more. Give a wee more melting on the northern areas, - tundras, and you'll begin to see methane. That is what the vast Siberian areas have in ample quantities and will release if melting enough for a good layer to "come alive" again.
Ooops....

But I think you were basically being sarcastic there or?

[Angus]

Then this...RIP:
"The actual number for chimp DNA is 98%, but I just wanted to keep the numbers close for the comparison. 2% is the difference between building an airplane and throwing poo."

Little percentages in the earth's balance also do a lot....

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Angus
Then this...RIP:
"The actual number for chimp DNA is 98%, but I just wanted to keep the numbers close for the comparison. 2% is the difference between building an airplane and throwing poo."

Little percentages in the earth's balance also do a lot....

Did you know that the volcanic eruptions on earth in the past 100 years have discharged more green house gases into the atmosphere than humans have? Google it.

[Angus]

Do you know that the Volcanoe's effects are yet mostly cooling due to the dust and ash particles they release?
The examples are even known in the USA as well as a well known chilling period in Europe in the 1780's and 1790's and some say this actually catapulted into the French revolution,,,untimely hunger you see.

Oh, google brought me little. Do you have a linkie?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Angus
Do you know that the Volcanoe's effects are yet mostly cooling due to the dust and ash particles they release?
The examples are even known in the USA as well as a well known chilling period in Europe in the 1780's and 1790's and some say this actually catapulted into the French revolution,,,untimely hunger you see.

Oh, google brought me little. Do you have a linkie? [/B]

They produce both cooling effects and warming effects, long term they produce global warming. I figure a man that projects him an expert in this field of global warming would at LEAST know this...
http://www.earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/change/change.html#VolcanicEffects

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by AlGorithm
This is a classic case of seeing what you want to see. Nowhere in the article does it say that CO2 emissions were ever as high as they are now.

You are correct: my mistake.

I was expecting to see something and thought I found it with not enough due diligence.

Kind of like the science in climate science.

Climatic Change (49: 2001)  Dr. Gerald North, Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography at Texas A&M, reviewed the book, Global Warming: The Hard Science, was written by L.D. Danny Harvey.

Twenty years ago the National Academy of Sciences produced a study that stated that, "If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere were doubled, the new temperature after equilibrium would be 1-3 degrees C higher."

It is now two decades later, and we still have approximately the same or even greater uncertainty for the sensitivity of climate to such an external forcing. In spite of all our increased understanding of [the] climate system over this period, we have not managed to narrow this uncertainty.

Climate modeling and simulation do not form a science in the classical sense. We cannot formulate a hypothesis and then proceed to test it in the laboratory. We have a complicated system with only a finite history of empirical information about it – far from enough, in fact.

The range of uncertainty is not an easy thing to assess. It seems to be mainly derived from an intercomparison of the models produced by different scientific groups around the world. This is a very poor means of arriving at the real uncertainty, since the models are rather similar to one another and probably even more like each other than like nature.

Using our fastest computers, North points out, it would take a month to run a point-by-point simulation of a one second evolution of the atmospheric motions within a one-kilometer cube.

"Hence, one is forced to the familiar procedure of parameterization and the inevitable fudge factors. We simply cannot get around it."

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Did you know that the volcanic eruptions on earth in the past 100 years have discharged more green house gases into the atmosphere than humans have? Google it.

So, because there have been a few volcanic eruptions in the last hundred years, we don't have to worry about the ~800 billion tonnes of man-made CO2 that will be released into the atmosphere by 2030. Mmmm, OK.




Read my previous Attenborough post again, Rip. The climatologists' computer model takes account of these natural events, and as Angus says - and as your link concurs - volcanoes also have a cooling effect - ash and sulphur. The doomsday predictions are based on man-made CO2. I'll be standing by to re-post this another 500 times, until you "get it".

[Debonair]

that bird is looking for climate change causing volcanoes?

[Angus]

LOL, what a birdie

Anyway:

This was the first article I read that enters the issue of volcanoes, so TY.
Unfortunately they are unstoppable. So is my own death. But I still won't be persuaded to go out and party to death right away, nope

[Jackal1]

If we will just keep those ancient Egyptians working hard and those forests thinned we should be in the clear.