In your face evidence of climate change

[mattikake]

Some pics to have a look at. The best way of seeing climate change is with receeding glaciers and ice flows. There are some good pictures going back over 100 years, so you can clearly see the difference now.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glac...

And some 'facts':

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-count...

Very interesting and exciting times. Either humans are going to get a much needed kick up the rse (that we are part of the eco-system, not free to do what we like... as some self-obsessed igorant versions of god or economic systems would have you believe) or we'll simply die out.

[mattikake]

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

[mattikake]

lunarscope said:

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

So, you accept that "the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resource : population for several billion years".
But you then claim that Man (a totally natural product of Earth) is an artifical addition that is somehow affecting the natural order of things.
Hmm, , I say "bks" to that.

...and the like.

Jesus there's some self-obsessed ignorance on display here, isn't there?!

Get the FUNDAMENTAL point: Man maybe natural, but the way man has been using natural resources, on land sea and most of all, stored under the ground, is NOT natural. It is NOT part of the natural eco-system.

This is before you consider the mass over-population of this plague we call humanity - over-population implies, using artificial over-use of resources to sustain an artificial over-sized population.

The law of conservation of energy is inscapeable (e.g. more man'energy' the less there has to be of everything else). No level of ignorance makes you exempt from this law.

[mattikake]

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.

Seeing as many can't seem to see literal reasoning and are decontructing this point it looks like I have to pose philosphically: :rolleys:
Question, just were do you think all that pollution goes? Why do you think it has absolutely ZERO effect?

Or another angle:
If you have a glass of white liquid, and progressively add black liquid until it turns black, at what point is the white liquid no longer pure white? Is it only when you notice? Only when you compare it to another glass of white liquid? Only when you decide? Only when you care?

Man HAS contributed. You just chosen not to notice or can't notice (yet).

Stuff that was not in the atmosphere, now is.

It's pretty basic reasoning really.

[mattikake]

Deltaf01 said:

mattikake said:

man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium,

How do you know its "sensitive"?

How sensitive is it to a volcano the size of Krakatoa blastig half the atmopshere into space?
We're still here, the plants and animals are still here?
It aint THAT sensitive pally, youre exagerrating to try and prove a pointless point.

Might be worth reading up on the nuclear winter and local environmental effects of Krakatoa, before using it as an example to prove it had no effect on the environment...

Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans. Comparatively something you couldn't notice yourself, so don'y make the (common) mitstake of using your own perceptions as a baseline. This affects billions of life forms. The same can be said for the great barrier reef. The Earth's eco-system is extreme sensitive to tiny changes in temperature.

[mattikake]

Replies are coming in too thick and fast. Mostly along the lines of delusion and a self-righteous inability to consider that we might be doing harm, no matter how initially minor, and that we should take responsbility for our actions, because nothing else will but fate...

Philosophical pose #3:

You stand at the top of a very long snowy slope and start to roll a snowball. How long before you no longer have to push the snowball before it rolls by itself? How long after the snowball starts rolling by itself, does it get so big it becomes impossible to stop it nomatter what you do? Oh-no, it's got so big it's about to flatten a village, bet you wished you never started it off and cared to think where it was going... but now it's too late.

[mattikake]

ewenm said:

mattikake said:

Replies are coming in too thick and fast. Mostly along the lines of delusion and a self-righteous inability to consider that we might be doing harm, no matter how initially minor, and that we should take responsbility for our actions, because nothing else will but fate...

Philosophical pose #3:

You stand at the top of a very long snowy slope and start to roll a snowball. How long before you no longer have to push the snowball before it rolls by itself? How long after the snowball starts rolling by itself, does it get so big it becomes impossible to stop it nomatter what you do? Oh-no, it's got so big it's about to flatten a village, bet you wished you never started it off and cared to think where it was going... but now it's too late.

How about if that's the easiest way to sort the overpopulation of that mountain region - not nice but perhaps it's needed (if you think the planet needs saving).

Well human extinction is the natural alternative,m but given we're here and all we need to do it *try*, that would be a pretty sad cop-out wouldn't it?

ewenm said:

I'll ask again, what are YOU doing to follow your beliefs?

If the grass is greener on the other side, rather than just go there all by myself, wouldn't it be better to take loads of others with me first so we can all enjoy it?

[mattikake]

Working...One of those things I have to do. and spending too much time just reading this lot and wonder which bits to reply to!

Edited by mattikake on Tuesday 22 July 14:38

[mattikake]

heh, well it certainly seems to have stirred-up some passionate responses, so it's playing on someone's mind...!

Just like to add that the "well if your way is better, go and do it" line is a cop-out too. If I were to go and live clean, I would be out of everyone else's sight and mind, so they can continue on the course of self-destruction. Does no-one any favours.

Besides, people don't like to be led by example, only to be led. - it excuses knowledge and therefore responsibility, which is what all the resistance is really all about.

Never underestimate the human abstractual capacity to generate excuses from any old a$$hole.

[mattikake]

lunarscope said:

TEKNOPUG said:

I'm confused

What is the climate changing from/to and why is it a bad thing?

He doesn't know.
In fact he hasn't even thought about that question.
He just knows that 'change' is bad.

Where do you get such bold claims about the state of someone else's mind? I wasn't even asking that question. This kind of person is far more damaging to a forum than someone who responds to questions/retorts aimed at him… or 'trolling' if you're too eager shout first and think later…

Why is discussion on a forum so wrong?

And to respond to the question, using reason, it's actually so obvious it almost answers itself. The climate is changing from something humans are evolved to live in, to something that we are certainly not, depending on how extreme the change is. In terms of change and evolution, you can take that as a fact, because we are here now, in these conditions. As the extreme could translate to probable extinction, it's probably a more worrying issue than someone apparently 'trolling' without Lunarscope's permission.

"If left unchecked, everything changes exponentially"

TEKNOPUG said:

So therefore, should I fear "change"?

Everyone fears change that is beyond their control. That's encoded into your behavioural genes. Even more obvious is to animalistically attack someone for suggesting that change is immanent. This is one of the human traits that has remained consistent throughout civilised history… that I can think, all of the en-masse resisters have eventually been proven wrong… don’t think just because it's your life and not history, that you are exempt. That would be dangerously self-obsessed, but totally human.

lunarscope said:

Nope, the climate may change towards the 'optimum', whatever that is.
But as we don't know what the optimum is, I wouldn't waste any energy worrying about it.

You know what the optimum is for humans… because you're thriving in the now, and you're a human. Anything else outside of these parameters of 400 years of recorded history, you can 'consider' to be not optimal. Whether that is a 1 degree global temperature change or 10, we may yet find out.

It's Lunarscope's surefooted attitude people like me, issuing a warning/raising awareness/making you think, find annoying - "you cannot prove this, so therefore I'm going to sit on the otherside of the fence and be aggressive while I can, as it's the perfect excuse not to better myself. I can now live out the rest of my life in ignorance, and not worry about the future for my desendants." Very human.

Most ask you to consider the possibility in a "what if" scenario (me), but to steadfastly refuse it when knowing that the evidence is not clear cut either way (Lunarscope), is dangerous and downright irresponsible, IMO. Whereas the "what if" scenario is still under our control to change attitudes.

[mattikake]

Maxf said:

Climate change people:

Do you believe that the temperature of the earth in 2000 (as an example, but you pick a year) is the CORRECT temperature for the earth?

Could it be that the earth is evolving which will make some areas warmer, some cooler, some wetter and some drier - the end result being that, as long as we adapt, the human race will be largely unaffected. Islington could be under water, but the Sahara could be the new grain belt?

Edited by Maxf on Tuesday 22 July 15:46

Fair enough, but you assume that the climate stabalises, even if out of the range of human survivability.

What if we get a runaway greenhouse effect, as in Venus? Or reach an atmospheric state where the planet can no longer hold waters, as in Mars? * What then? What about all the other life on the planet? What right do we have to allow it to be exterminated, if only because we choose not to accept responsibility for the things we do on this planet?

NB: * best accepted theories.

[mattikake]

lunarscope said:

Andy Zarse said:

lunarscope said:

mattikake said:

Working...One of those things I have to do. and spending too much time just reading this lot and wonder which bits to reply to!

Edited by mattikake on Tuesday 22 July 14:38

Please tell us all just what is the 'normal' state for Earth.

It's no good. I've asked him that twice already but mattacake never replies.

Hence why I asked the Mods to sort him out, i.e., bin him.

A bit harsh to ban someone for ignoring you. I mean, who's behaving like the troll now?

What question? I've just, admittedly scan-read, the entire thread and not seen one? You're not the only one firing back you know...

Is it, "what is normal for Earth?"

The now? Something tied into the Milankovitch cycle? Oh, I got it, a time before human industrialisation, is the only way to be sure of what is normal.

What I'm saying, is it is not normal - not in the history of planet Earth - for a lifeform to go digging up millions of years worth of stored solar energy and release it all in a couple of hundred. And if you release ALL the stored energy in ALL past and present life, wouldn't we in effect return to an uninhabitable primordial Earth? How is this good?

In retort, if you challenge me to say what is normal then does this mean know what is not normal then? Of course, if you don't know that answer to this, then how can you be so sure I'm wrong to voice warnings of bad mass attitudes, the likes of which are reflected in yours and Lunarscopes posts?

[mattikake]

Globulator said:

cymtriks said:

Consider this Matticake:

Temperature changes in history and "normal" temperature

First take a very long term view:


This immediately shows us some interesting points as follows:

The Earths normal temperature is some 10 degrees hotter than today.
The Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 than today.
Temperature and CO2 do not correlate well over the very long term.
The climate in recent history is abnormally cold.

That last one is worth a closer look. For many thousands of years (the extreme right of the above picture) we have been bumping along in and out of ice ages. When the Greens start every other statement about the weather with "the hottest day/month/week/year since records began they are omitting something very very important. Simply that "when records began" was pretty close to the coldest the Earth has been since the last ice age and the last ice age was one of the most abnormally cold periods ever. The Greens might as well say "my thermometer is showing the highest temperature ever since I removed it from my freezer and stuck it in the oven".

Recently we have had dramatic changes in temperature:
Hippo carcases have been dredged from the river Thames showing a much hotter climate in relatively recent history.
The Romans grew vineyards as far north as York and species of insect now found in the mediterranean lived in the UK at the time.
The late Roman period and dark ages were a bit colder.
The middle ages warmed up a bit.
The little ice age, cica 1350 to 1900, which was when "records began"

So we know that change is normal, that it is often big, shows no link to CO2, and that "since records began" is a very misleading statement indeed.

We also know that Earth without ice caps is normal and that, if anything, the Earth is freakishly cold at the moment.

Temperature changes and CO2

Ice core readings do not show CO2 leading temperature, they show the opposite by hundreds of years.

This is interesting because "hundreds of years" is the timescale required for a warming of the Earths climate to affect the deep ocean. The deep ocean contains a lot of disolved CO2. Now think what happens when you open a warm bottle of lemonade? Exactly, the gas comes out. So a few hundred years ago the Earth started to pull out of the bottom of the little ice age, now the deep disolved CO2 is comming to the surface.

Now consider the Greens claim that the CO2 is all man made, or at least the recent increase in CO2. This is based on the type of C in CO2, C12 being an organic marker as opposed to inorganic stuff which is more likely to be C14. C12 is an indicator of fossil fuels, supposedly derived from organic stuff, that we are burning.

The oceans surface is C12 rich due to all the stuff living near to the surface. The remainder is very slightly C14 rich except for the very bottom which is massively C12 rich.

So...

As the Earth warms the CO2 comes out of the ocean, first C12 (before we measured it), then slightly C14 rich (mostly before we measured it and not much either way) and finally a big spike of C12.

So around 300 years after warming started (i.e. from the little ice age "when records began" ) you would expect the atmosphere to show a big surge in C12 CO2.

According to the Greens this same C12 "proves" that the CO2 increase is all our fault. In fact it doesn't. It is impossible to sort out which is which. It might come from us burning fossil fuels, it might come from the bottom of the sea, we just don't know and in any case temperature comes before CO2 anyway in the records which suggests it isn't causing warming in the first place.

So much for their main argument.

Good post

+1

(seen that graph before somewhere, maybe American Scientific) One thing it doesn't take into account is the cooling of the Earth's core, that has been in progress since day 1. This will certainly have a major impact on surface temperatures, even if down to lessening plate tectonic and volcanic activity. The Earth should be getting cooler naturally. The Milankovitch cycle also plants us in a cool period.

These two factors are also a means to explain why early CO2 levels didn't seem to have much effect on the average global temperatures.

You will note of course in cooler times, the cold-blooded reptile has been superceeded by the warm-blooded mammal. This is something that has taken millenia and several ELE's. Are you saying it's fine for the Earth and evolution to revert back to an earlier stage and drop all the progress made since? Arguably, it appears so far that only mammals have gained intelligence, reptiles had their chance but never made it. It would be a shame to lose that.

This is all beside the point. We know for a fact, that we are artificially pumping out CO2 and all that is said above is an excuse to abstain from our 'higher' omniscient responsibilities. We know what we are doing is not normal - has not been seen before. We know it is either having an effect or will have an effect. We have the means to see this and change our habits.

There are too many variables for anyone to be 100% certain exactly why the Earth warms and cools, yet. But our hap-hazard uncaring attitude, if it is having an effect, is going to have a nasty one for 'life as we know it'.

I agree that the reverse implication of artificially controlling the weather to suit ourselves/current life is probably also an incorrect step - depending on your pov of what is 'natural'. But I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting humans need to snap out of our self-obsessed delusion and see ourselves as part of the superorganism called Earth (Gaia theory), not external to it. Earth wasn't put here for our express exploitation. We appeared because of current conditions, not inspite of them. We should treat it as part of our existence, not as a resource store to exploit and effectively "strip mine" without care or remorse and not cleaning up after ourselves.

Life will certainly go on. Most life will certainly become extinct or evolve, but that's not a reason to do nothing about ourselves and carry on with our selfish indulgences. It's an excuse. As I said, never underestimate the human capacity for inventing excuses to suit itself. In our case the excuse is for globalisation, profit, economy, greed... not for the actual benefit of mankind.

---

So giving the myriad unknowns, both in cause and future direction, we come full-circle. As was initially philosophically advised, you can only truly accept and use ONLY what you see for yourself. These are many different human devices pumping tonnes of dirt sh!t into the atmosphere. Ask yourself if you think this is good, if you think it does not have an effect, and doesn't require responsibility?

Edited by mattikake on Wednesday 23 July 09:40

[mattikake]

benjfrst said:

11 pages and no mention of 'The Gaia hypothesis'
Now I'm no expert on this, I was only made aware of it last year.

Which according to, there is no natural climate as such - the climate is controlled by living organisms. The way i read it some algae in the sea will sort our excess co2

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

"This coordinated system of living organisms maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis."
"Later other relationships such as the fact that sea creatures produce sulfur and iodine in approximately the quantities required by land creatures emerged and helped bolster the theory."


Thus life and the side-effects of life influence and are influenced by the environment. This creates a feedback mechanism that is largely self-regulating. For example, if the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide rise then more plants grow - which remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

It is interesting to note that since life on Earth began the heat from the sun has increased by 25%. Yet in all that time the actual surface temperature has remained near constant. This suggests that there must be some form of control mechanism.

Edited by benjfrst on Wednesday 23 July 11:45

I mentioned Gaia theory on the previous page actually.

All very feasible and basically works around supply and demand, cause and effect. But as I keep saying, there is a progressive equilibrium that revolves around this and that all life has evolved with. But no lifeform yet has gone buggering up the supply and releasing thousands of times more CO2 that is needed. We can't be sure what that will do for Gaia, but we can be sure that it isn't how it normally evolved to work, because it's never happened in this way before. It doesn't mean the planet and life won't recover either, but it will certainly be a bit different.

[mattikake]

fatboy b said:

im said:

You appear to have beaten the sceptics into submission on this thread Mattikake as its all gone a little quiete.

Although to be fair once you go down the Gaia road most people will nod-off as its still perceived as being up there with pixie theory.

But he's gone and started another one about trees. Some people just never know when to get off .

When you find something fun, indulge. That's what the system teaches us isn't it?

[mattikake]

[mattikake=quote]

sleep envy said:

sleep envy said:

mattikake said:

we should take responsbility for our actions

answer me this, why after examining fosilised DNA under Greenland, they established the planet was 5 degrees warmer 125k years ago?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/oldest-d...

any chance of a response on this?

I will, but was going to find a good Milankovitch graph that includes this period first...

Acutally found one on wiki straight away. If the grahp is a correct regurgitation then 125K years ago appears to sit right on a cyclic maximum of temperature swings - HOT. So it would appear to tie in just about perfectly with this cycle and (perhaps) have nothing to do with CO2 levels and a natural climate variation at all, blowing your entire counter argument out of the water in one easy hit... though things are rarely that simple.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milankovitch_Va... See where 125K years ago would sit on that graph.

disclaimer: of course this cycle will affect the temperature of the planet and therefore certainly CO2 consuming and CO2 producing life on the planet to some degree. Whether the effect is just of M. cycle or natural climate change would be difficult to prove without more research.

Edited by mattikake on Wednesday 23 July 14:13

[mattikake]

mattikake said:

sleep envy said:

sleep envy said:

mattikake said:

we should take responsbility for our actions

answer me this, why after examining fosilised DNA under Greenland, they established the planet was 5 degrees warmer 125k years ago?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/oldest-d...

any chance of a response on this?

I will, but was going to find a good Milankovitch graph that includes this period first...

Actually found one on wiki straight away. If the graph is a correct regurgitation then 125K years ago appears to sit right on a cyclic maximum of temperature swings - HOT. So it would appear to tie in just about perfectly with this cycle and (perhaps) have nothing to do with CO2 levels and a natural climate variation at all, blowing your entire counter argument out of the water in one easy hit... though things are rarely that simple.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milankovitch_Va... See where 125K years ago would sit on that graph.

disclaimer: of course this cycle will affect the temperature of the planet and therefore certainly CO2 consuming and CO2 producing life on the planet to some or massive degree. Whether the effect is just of M. cycle or natural climate change would be difficult to prove without more research. How long th eM. cycle takes to affect life and CO2 levels on the planet is also unknow to me... or probably anyone.

Should I tell those New Scientist researchers about this finding?

Edited by mattikake on Wednesday 23 July 14:18

[mattikake]

sleep envy said:

ludo said:

sleep envy said:

ludo said:

sleep envy said:

no the dinosaurs did and their 7.2l V12's

O.K., still waiting for you to explain how 450-900K year old DNA that had been under an ice cap for 300K years established that it was 5 degrees warmer 125K years ago. (ISTR you sending reminders to others to answer your questions, so I expect you don't mind if I follow your example).

Edited by ludo on Wednesday 23 July 13:28

using your example, I've already explained that at the top the the page

In that case, I don't understand how DNA at least 450 million years old tells you what the climate was like 125K years ago (when the flora and fauna it was taken from had been dead for 300K years old) rather than what it was like 450K years ago, when it was alive. You have not explained that on this thread.

from DNA evidence taken from other areas which by means of carbon dating they can establish how old it was

But the more you cool atoms, the slower the rate of radio-active decay.

Edited by mattikake on Wednesday 23 July 14:20

[mattikake]

sleep envy said:

mattikake said:

If the graph is a correct regurgitation then 125K years ago appears to sit right on a cyclic maximum of temperature swings - HOT. So it would appear to tie in just about perfectly with this cycle and (perhaps) have nothing to do with CO2 levels and a natural climate variation at all, blowing your entire counter argument out of the water in one easy hit... though things are rarely that simple.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milankovitch_Va... See where 125K years ago would sit on that graph.

disclaimer: of course this cycle will affect the temperature of the planet and therefore certainly CO2 consuming and CO2 producing life on the planet to some degree. Whether the effect is just of M. cycle or natural climate change would be difficult to prove without more research.

it could do or it might not, so in other words it doesn't answer anything

Well that would be diametrically equal and opposite to your point and nothing else. Which again, brings me back to my point about planetary ethics and morals which would appear to still stand.

The Milankovitch cycle says the Earth would have been warmer because it was closer to the sun and the axial obliquity and precession was more extreme.

Either way, it's the end of your particular argument that 'if global warming due to CO2 is happening, why was it warmer 125K years ago'? It was, but not because of climate induced by CO2.

Edited by mattikake on Wednesday 23 July 14:51

[mattikake]

ludo said:

Holmesian said:

All this angst about melting ice is amusing too.

We tend to be rather naive when someone says something, so here's a little experiment you can all do yourselves.

Get 2 pint glasses.

Put a teaspoon of salt in one leaving the other plain.

Fill both with ice-cubes.

Top up with tap water.

Fill till they both just 'brim' [if you know what a meniscus is then take them to there for increased accuracy]

Make sure you have a blotter underneath to catch any trace of moisture.

Now wait.

You might just be surprised at what happens and what this means for worldwide sea levels.

And the relevance of that to the melting of the Greenland ice cap is what exactly?

It could refer to the collapse of the Gulf Stream. More fresh ice water = warm water doesn't get so far north in the Atlantic, which according to some theories, will bring about a new ice age.

First clues are cooler wetter summers and warmer wetter winters for the UK, in case you hadn't noticed it already. NB: <- that's goading.