Ancient climate change 'link' to CO2 A "global pattern" of change in the Earth's climate began 2.7 million years ago, say scientists. Researchers found that, at this point, temperature patterns in the tropics slipped into step with patterns of Ice Ages in the Northern Hemisphere.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
... the big thing that has not been mentioned is that the Earth has ALWAYS had climate changes, depending on whether or not we had a continent over a pole, when we had a super continent (we've had about half a dozen or more), volcanic events, and various solar cycles. The idea that we have a climate cycle is hardly a new one -- given that you could ice skate on the Thames in the early 20th century and there was the hottest heatwave known to us in Medieval times, it's not hard for historians alone to discover that.
In the words of my father, it is very difficult to pin it all on CO2, something which has doubled in concentration (170 ppm to 380 or so ppm), but does exclude a ton of other factors -- simple water vapour and other greenhouse gases are far more powerful heat capturing substances. It is more likely that it's part of a cycle which has been suspected for years but has been pushed by the wayside because there was a lot more funding and interest going into global warming. When you look at times when CO2 was the highest in the atmosphere, it's hard to correlate it directly to CO2 alone with all these exogenous factors would could easily effect temperature as well (as I listed a few above).
The key thing which has always bothered me is the complete lack of attention paid to the sun in any of these models.
The article discussed CO2 being used as a start off points for other greenhouse gases, in the case of my mentioning water particles in the air, and I'm not going to give my own opinion beyond that. What I said was essentially a rehash of the article without making a definitive opinion down either slope -- my own thoughts and little more.
The role of water vapour has also been quite closely examined. Since water exists in all three phases on Earth, it can equilibriate itself more readily to temperature (through precipitation, evaporation, etc). CO2, on the other hand, is a non-condensable gas, so once in the atmosphere, it stays in the atmosphere a lot longer (though it can be removed by being absorbed into the oceans or taken up by biomass).
Doubling CO2 concentrations should result in a temperature rise. It would actually be more interesting if the CO2 was increasing and the planet wasn't heating up. Of course the climate always changes, but the anthropogenic CO2 overlays itself on top of those changes. The radiation balance due to increased CO2 is actually quite elementary. The hard part is the sensitivity of the climate to the change in CO2--that is the interrelationship between positive and negative feedback loops (cloud cover, albedo, etc).
I can get why you feel this is just another AGW topic but my aims was to talk about the science and the climate cycle, and not about AGW, as I’d hoped I’d had made clear – sorry if you feel I hadn’t.
I don’t know, in general when I read the literature it seems very easy to find atmospheric or geological papers, etc, but whenever I turn to looking to the sun it all goes the same way; It is very hard to conceive of a cause which could affect the Earth alone OR it is part of another paper saying that they chose not to include the sun as a possible variable.
While I can get papers showing that it is not a direct correlation, I do wish that the studies were a bit more comprehensive on that front – I think there’s still a good deal to be learned from that area of interaction, and besides the IPCC in a few papers you don’t find many papers discussing the interaction, or in what ways cycles and such effect Earth.
CO2 can still move through a number of viable carbon cycles and easily be converted, mind. I think it’s interesting how this paper viewed it more as a precursor or trigger point for the feedback loop rather than as a chief cause directly in regards to the water cycle and how dense our atmosphere in regions become from increased amounts of vapour in the air.
My major problem with the doubling is that something which that small a concentration in the atmosphere just doesn’t make sense to me as the only cause. I say this because of some measurements they have taken during other heat-waves or ice ages from ice cores and such which show odd variances in the amount that CO2 was present in the atmosphere. Mind, as sandorski said, anthropogenic global warming has been discussed to infinity and I’d rather not rehash that particular discussion, but it does make me wonder if we’ve gotten a little too much tunnel vision when it comes to studies as of late – sediment papers seem to be the chief type of paper that topics on AGW, for or against, have been turning out for the better part of two years now.
I don’t know, in general when I read the literature it seems very easy to find atmospheric or geological papers, etc, but whenever I turn to looking to the sun it all goes the same way; It is very hard to conceive of a cause which could affect the Earth alone OR it is part of another paper saying that they chose not to include the sun as a possible variable.
While I can get papers showing that it is not a direct correlation, I do wish that the studies were a bit more comprehensive on that front – I think there’s still a good deal to be learned from that area of interaction, and besides the IPCC in a few papers you don’t find many papers discussing the interaction, or in what ways cycles and such effect Earth.
I recommend this thread on Physics Forum to go through the radiation math. It's technically very good but not as hard to understand as the peer reviewed papers.
Estimating the impact of CO2 on global mean temperature
C)2 can, indeed, be taken up in many ways, but the fact that it is going up is a strong indicator that it is not being taken up at the rate we are putting it in.
Again, I recommend the above link. He does the math to show how doubling CO2 will affect the atmosphere. Even the sceptics--at least the serious ones--don't deny that, if you don't account for feedback loops (and that's a big "if")--then you get a temp rise of about 1.1 deg C for every doubling of CO2. Have fun reading!
The two things the global warming alarmists are missing in all of their prognostications are: 1) what information would prove them wrong and 2) to admit the mechanism by which an ice age would start in a CO2-rich environment.
1. Failure to continue to warm and explanation as to why increased CO2 did not warm.
2. Don't get this one at all.
Most people also only use climatologists as a source, they report climate but what they almost never even mention is the fact that the earth is always warming up and cooling down, right now we are supposed to be warming up and we are nowhere near what the earth has done before.
No, considering the earth used to be a molten ball.
Most people also only use climatologists as a source, they report climate but what they almost never even mention is the fact that the earth is always warming up and cooling down, right now we are supposed to be warming up and we are nowhere near what the earth has done before.
No, considering the earth used to be a molten ball.
The earth has also been nearly a complete desert that dried up almost all the fresh water and in our own time we have nearly been wiped out by a dry period that was on the verge of wiping out early man (a few thousand survived from tens of thousands)
2. Don't get this one at all.
Simple: It's proposed that CO2 causes the climate to warm. Great. Then by what mechanism does an ice age start to cause the decline of a CO2 induced warm period?
Logically, the presence of high levels of CO2 should preclude any such cooling, yet the record shows that exactly that has happened. Despite high CO2 levels the climate has cooled down to an ice age.
Really, this is the heart of the AGW question is to not only say what causes warming but to define what causes cooling. Because if you define what causes cooling then you are on track to proving (or disproving) that a warming cycle is evident.
The earth has also been nearly a complete desert that dried up almost all the fresh water and in our own time we have nearly been wiped out by a dry period that was on the verge of wiping out early man (a few thousand survived from tens of thousands)
"Dry periods" are caused by ice ages in which much of the planets' moisture is locked away in ice. That does not mean the water "dried up". If "all the water" dries up then it is converted to water vapor and the atmosphere simply cannot hold "all the water".
In short, there has never been a period in human history when "all the water" dried up.
The earth has also been nearly a complete desert that dried up almost all the fresh water and in our own time we have nearly been wiped out by a dry period that was on the verge of wiping out early man (a few thousand survived from tens of thousands)
"Dry periods" are caused by ice ages in which much of the planets' moisture is locked away in ice. That does not mean the water "dried up". If "all the water" dries up then it is converted to water vapor and the atmosphere simply cannot hold "all the water".
In short, there has never been a period in human history when "all the water" dried up.We were stuck in the middle of Africa with no way to reach any other water, the fresh water was all gone as the heat had made most of it evaporated or be spread into the oceans.