Life will rebound from whatever level of extinction is in our future. Human importance is being threatened by our lack of regard for what we do.
Global Warming and Extinction
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Berzerker
Deity
you mean life will rebound when we're no longer around to kill it
yeah, I know...
doesn't change the fact we're causing a mass extinction
yeah, I know...
doesn't change the fact we're causing a mass extinction
If not by us, then sooner or later it will come by other means.
Berzerker
Deity
red giant will swallow us, the biblical lake of fire 
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
If Solar cycle 25 plays out as anticipated and 24 continues its long decline off a very low peak then I'd imagine that after this el nino people in the temperate zones will be wondering where the heat went. There will be no denying the true trend.
CO 2 isn't the greenhouse gas its cracked up to be and won't be much help.
The only serious question in my mind aside from cycle 25 is whether we are heading into a solar minimum or out of the Holocene interglacial and back to the normal climate for this planet, colder than hell. Keep in mind the interglacials last less than 11,000 years for the most part and we are past that. Once glaciation returns, whether its in a few years or a few thousand, it will show humanity that we are indeed living in a warm bit of an ice age. The last period of glaciation lasted 100,000 years. That's the norm, not this, no matter how many cows fart between now and then.
What keeps people busy in their thoughts can be fairly absurd at times.
Berzerker
Deity
we're not due to reach our minimum tilt for another 10k, not that ice sheets will wait that long before advancing
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Yes I know about the tilt, but how can the interglacials and glacial periods come with such regularity if that's what determines them? I think rather it depends on the sun, perhaps a cycle so long we haven't calculated it yet.
You aren't seriously using someone who has next to no knowledge about climate (he comes from a completely different field of science), and whose ideas have been disproven rather handily by virtually everyone else, to "prove" that global warming isn't real, are you?
Neither did Giaever properly look at the methods use to get the data, nor did he really use any scientific methods. Indeed, he actually contradicts himself more than once.
Glaciations are quite clearly not the "normal" climate for this planet. In fact, they only existed for a very tiny part of earth's history, with only a selected few periods every few hundred million years having any ice coverage at all.
The last few million years are part of such an era. And yes, during that time glacials last a whole lot longer than interglacials, but that is still just a tiny bit of history. And no, it's almost impossible for a new ice age to hit in the next few thousand years, much less the next few hundreds. Eccentricity, obliquity and precession for the next few thousand years don't lend themselves to another ice age. The current situation is more comparable to a past interglacial that lasted at least 28,000 years, with the orbital forcing making it likely to last for at least another 50,000 years (not counting any possible human influence). While the Milankovitch cycles likely do not cause the ice ages completely on their own, they are still so fundamental that you cannot really cause one against them either, and as pointed out above, the near future of these cycles doesn't lend itself to a new glacial happening anytime soon.
I don't really see what you point about regularity is supposed to mean. The earlier cycle was ~40k years, which is the obliquity cycle. More recently it has been about 100k years, which is either the eccentricity cycle, a change in the obliquity cycle (going from two stable climates to three, thus causing steps that last 80k or 120k, which over the long-term average appears as a 100k cycle) or perhaps orbital inclination (also 100k)
Longterm variations in the sun's output just don't lend itself to cause glacials, the changes are way too weak for that.
The sunspot cycle is hardly relevant either. People love to mention the little ice age in combination with the Maunder minimum, but they completely ignore that
a) the little ice age started way before the minimum
b) while it produced some of the coldest winters in Europe, it also produced some of the hottest ones
c) summers weren't effected one bit
These cycles may have an impact on the climate (something that most definately hasn't been proven yet), but they quite clearly are not involved in creating ice ages. Their impact is way too weak for that.
For the sun to actually be the driving factor, pretty much everything would need to be the other way round. Daily temperatures would rise more quickly than nighttime ones, but the opposite is the case (which is exactly what you would expect with more greenhouse gases). The southern hemisphere would need to warm more quickly than the northern one, but again, the opposite is the case. Just like the atmosphere doesn't get warmer at every level, but instead heats up near the ground and cools higher up, once again the opposite of what would happen if the sun were the driving factor.
And just for reference: the "true trend" of temperature is distinctly going upwards. There is nothing that even suggest that temperatures are trending down in any way, regardless of how many things you cannot discount you try to discount.
Neither did Giaever properly look at the methods use to get the data, nor did he really use any scientific methods. Indeed, he actually contradicts himself more than once.
Glaciations are quite clearly not the "normal" climate for this planet. In fact, they only existed for a very tiny part of earth's history, with only a selected few periods every few hundred million years having any ice coverage at all.
The last few million years are part of such an era. And yes, during that time glacials last a whole lot longer than interglacials, but that is still just a tiny bit of history. And no, it's almost impossible for a new ice age to hit in the next few thousand years, much less the next few hundreds. Eccentricity, obliquity and precession for the next few thousand years don't lend themselves to another ice age. The current situation is more comparable to a past interglacial that lasted at least 28,000 years, with the orbital forcing making it likely to last for at least another 50,000 years (not counting any possible human influence). While the Milankovitch cycles likely do not cause the ice ages completely on their own, they are still so fundamental that you cannot really cause one against them either, and as pointed out above, the near future of these cycles doesn't lend itself to a new glacial happening anytime soon.
I don't really see what you point about regularity is supposed to mean. The earlier cycle was ~40k years, which is the obliquity cycle. More recently it has been about 100k years, which is either the eccentricity cycle, a change in the obliquity cycle (going from two stable climates to three, thus causing steps that last 80k or 120k, which over the long-term average appears as a 100k cycle) or perhaps orbital inclination (also 100k)
Longterm variations in the sun's output just don't lend itself to cause glacials, the changes are way too weak for that.
The sunspot cycle is hardly relevant either. People love to mention the little ice age in combination with the Maunder minimum, but they completely ignore that
a) the little ice age started way before the minimum
b) while it produced some of the coldest winters in Europe, it also produced some of the hottest ones
c) summers weren't effected one bit
These cycles may have an impact on the climate (something that most definately hasn't been proven yet), but they quite clearly are not involved in creating ice ages. Their impact is way too weak for that.
For the sun to actually be the driving factor, pretty much everything would need to be the other way round. Daily temperatures would rise more quickly than nighttime ones, but the opposite is the case (which is exactly what you would expect with more greenhouse gases). The southern hemisphere would need to warm more quickly than the northern one, but again, the opposite is the case. Just like the atmosphere doesn't get warmer at every level, but instead heats up near the ground and cools higher up, once again the opposite of what would happen if the sun were the driving factor.
And just for reference: the "true trend" of temperature is distinctly going upwards. There is nothing that even suggest that temperatures are trending down in any way, regardless of how many things you cannot discount you try to discount.
So you are saying we are seeing record temperatures because the sun declines off a very low peak? That does not even begin to make sense.
None of that will change whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas nor change that we're going to have to figure out where the extra heat is being stored. You're predicting a cooling, because of factors exogenous to CO2, and that's fine. You can always double-down on your compensatory charity if you're wrong. But there're many, many people who want to deny the foundations of the concern.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
You'll find a way i'm sure. ☺
useless
Social Justice Rogue
I look forward to a world without humans and possibly london
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
You've been doing quite well denying the true trend for 4 years. In one year when your prediction 4 years ago will turn out to be bunk, I'm sure your reaction will be a lot of excuses and the claim you're still right.
What I don't expect you to do is admit environmental scientists were closer to the mark and it would be better to listen to those guys rather than a random internet person who has been repeating the same completely debunked statement for years despite of all the contradicting evidence.
That is my prediction for one year for now. I hope I'm proven wrong and will point out this post to admit to being wrong.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Ziggy! 
Nice to see you. Where you been?
I don't think our bet contained anything about whether your bunch of environmental scientists were closer to the mark.
Nice to see you. Where you been?I don't think our bet contained anything about whether your bunch of environmental scientists were closer to the mark.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
I'll try to put things as simply as I can. If you turn off the heater in the winter does the house get cold?
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
I've gone through it in the past enough times but I'll throw an abridged version at you so you can make fun of it.
CO2 does not drive climate, quite the reverse. When temps went up CO2 followed, since forever. Yet they really applied themselves to reversing this. Trouble is, the end of warming, the beginning of 'the pause' as your guys called it before they decided to hide the heat under the rug or something. CO2 continued to rise after measurable warming vanished. In fact it went through the roof, but no warming resulted. CO2 needed to be rescued and that's when your guys said they were wrong about the pause but instead the warming got from the sun to down in the deep ocean without heating anything along the way. Of course the great unwashed masses ate this up because it was mixed with dire predictions, none of which have come true. For the average Joe it appears that if you can keep bringing out new predictions of disaster it doesn't seem to matter whether there's any results.
So, CO2 is an underachiever, the warming we had was due to natural events and trends. Those trends changed, climate change is quite normal, and now the warming is gone.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Since I was voicing the opinion of the environmental scientists, by proxy it surely is.
And since your prediction is geared up to be so spectacularly far from the mark, I don't think it matters.
2011: "Listen Ziggy, by this time 2012, no one will be able to deny it, since you all be freezing your arse off"
2012: "Yeah, well maybe not one year, but with a 5 year trend, the cooling trend will be impossible to deny"
2015: "If Solar cycle 25 plays out as anticipated and 24 continues its long decline off a very low peak then I'd imagine that after this el nino people in the temperate zones will be wondering where the heat went. There will be no denying the true trend."
So, sorry if you being proven blatantly wrong for years while maintaining your obvious erroneous opinion on global warming and only having "you'll see!" as an argument doesn't give me great confidence you'll graciously admit being on the wrong side of the argument.
I'm expecting something along the lines of: "Ok, you were right, but I don't think our bet contained anything about whether your bunch of environmental scientists were closer to the mark. In 10 years when solar cycle 25 is really in effect you all be freezing your butts off. You'll see!"
And in a year it will be your chance to prove that cynical sentiment wrong, and teach me to have more faith in my fellow human beings. Which is a big deal actually, so there's quite a lot at stake
Cynical sentiment to Ziggy: "See!?"
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Ocean level rise is quite normal. What happens at the end of periods of glaciation is the glaciers start melting. They continue doing so, aside from brief periods of cooling, until the glacial periods return. Then ocean levels fall as glaciers rebuild.
The glaciers were melting long before people started putting out so much CO2. That's why there's no ice over much of North America.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Shame he doesn't know what a trend is.
Similar threads
