User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 49 to 56 of 80

Thread: I Smell...

  1. #49
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    lets see it




    this is great..........i argue politics with Bruce and i get to argue enviromental stuff with you................life is good
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  2. #50
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Alright first of all

    that hump in the middle is called the midievil warm period

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age."

    In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.
    For larger viewing version of graph, please click here or on image.

    There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century. For example, Mann et al. (1999) generated a 1,000 year Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction (shown above) using data from multiple ice cores and tree ring records. This reconstruction suggests that the 1998 annual average temperature was more than two standard deviations warmer than any annual average temperature value since AD 1,000 (shown in yellow). In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. To learn more about the so-called "Medieval Warm Period", please read this review published in Climatic Change, written by M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]The Earth has experienced other warm times in the past, including the Medieval Warm Period (approximately 800-1300 AD), the mid-Holocene (6,000 years ago), and the penultimate interglacial period (125,000 years ago). These warm periods are described in the sections below

    Paleoclimate for times before 2,000 years ago are also useful because they reveal the full extent of natural climate variability. These older records show that climate has changed abruptly in the past, and also reveal a remarkable correspondence between carbon dioxide change and temperature change during the Earth glacial cycles, described in the sections below.


    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...leobefore.html
    I enjoy debating with you. This is fun.
    that makes no logic

  3. #51
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    just cause the last interglacil period was shorter does that mean they were all shorter?

    from your data above:
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today
    how are we experiancing global warming if we havent even hit the level it was just 1100 years ago yet?...................alot of your other data says we are possibly warmer than we have been for probably the last 2000 years than you post the above which contradicts that.............
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  4. #52
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also from my data from above
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect
    you didnt read through completely.
    as you can see, there is no contradiction


    And i know you are wondering, how does the long-term data bolster my argument. It shows that we are not still coming out of an ice age, for one. Secondly, from my link
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ] remarkable correspondence between carbon dioxide change and temperature change during the Earth glacial cycles, described in the sections below
    This is the big one. The carbon dioxide levels directly relate almost exactly
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if the Earth is in radiative balance, and are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice-sheet extent.

    Temperature change (blue) and carbon dioxide change (red) observed in ice core records Many other records are available

    Taking these different influences into account, it is possible to determine how much the temperature decreased when carbon dioxide was reduced, and use this scaling (termed climate sensitivity) to determine how much temperature might increase as carbon dioxide increases. An estimate from the tropical ocean, far from the influence of ice sheets, indicates that the tropical ocean may warm 5°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. The paleo data provide a valuable independent check on the sensitivity of climate models, and the 5°C value is consistent with many of the current coupled climate models.

    Other paleo proxies help us understand the role of the oceans in past and future climate change. The ocean contains 60 times more carbon than the atmosphere, and as expected, the changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were paralleled by changes in carbon in the ocean over the past several hundred thousand years. While the ocean changes much more slowly than the atmosphere, the ocean played an essential role in past variations in carbon dioxide, and will also play a role in the future over thousands of years.

    Finally, the paleo data reveal that climate change is not just about temperature. As carbon dioxide has changed in the past, many other aspects of climate changed too. During glacial times, snow-lines were lower, continents were drier, and the tropical monsoons were weaker. Some of these changes may be independent, others tightly coupled to the changing level of carbon dioxide. Understanding which of these changes might occur in the future, and how large those changes might be, remains a topic of vigorous research. The Paleoclimatology Program exists to help scientists document these changes that have occurred in the past as one approach to understanding future climate change.
    In conclusion, it can b e surmised that the climate is directly related to the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. More carbon dioxide = warmer temperatures, as conclusivly proven by climate records
    that makes no logic

  5. #53
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    dont mean to sound like an **** but read BOTH of your last two posts.........your contridicting yourself or using evidence to back you up that contridicts your argument. first you tell me the spike in your data is from the medival warm period and the next batchj of data you present says such a thing doesnt exist......................pick a side and stick with it!!!
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  6. #54
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, first of all yes that spike was the midievil warm period. The data and i actually state that yes there was a warm period, but that the midievil warm period often cited as being warmer than today does not exist. Please re-read my last reply
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect
    The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today is incorrect, but the phenomena itself does exist, as is seen in the graphs. Its just not as warm as today. Got it?
    that makes no logic

  7. #55
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    please remember im trying to do this at work...........must by necesity skim.......

    question, what are they using for temp referances when you start getting back nearly half a million years? leads me to think they could miss warm periods 100 years long or more in the data with ease.
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  8. #56
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Links to something too technical to easily understand but the gist of the reading is “"GT4" ice core chronology (gas and ice chronology),
    Deuterium and reconstructed temperature, Dust content, Sodium concentrations,
    CO2, CH4, atmospheric oxygen composition.

    This is in unfiltered scientific jargon about the temperature from that link
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ] Column 4 -Temperature difference wrt the mean recent time value
    (i.e. corresponding departure from –438 ‰ mean deuterium value)
    Deuterium data is from core 3G between 138 and 2083 meters below surface (mbs)
    (with one long missing section between 312 and 320 mbs), from core 4G between 8 and
    138 mbs and between 1920 and 2546 mbs and from core 5G between 2504 and 2757 mbs.
    Ash layers help to make link between cores. No correction was applied for 3G and 4G
    core taken as reference depth. For 5G samples, a value of 3.41 m have been added
    to the depth measured in the field below depth of 2500 m.
    Deuterium values (column 3) have been measured on ice samples of length comprised
    between 0.5 and 2 m (down to 2080 m) then every 1 m. Data was re-interpolated on 1m
    intervals afterwards. The ice recovery is 85% or higher. Measurement accuracy is
    of ± 0.5‰ SMOW (1 s). From the surface down to 7 m a constant value
    (derived from surface and pits samples) of -438.0 ‰ is reported.
    The temperature change indicated in column 4 (temperature above the inversion).
    This temperature is calculated using a deuterium/temperature gradient of 9‰/°C
    after accounting for the isotopic change of sea-water. No correction for the
    influence of the geographical position of the ice was applied.
    For the rest of us, there is this

    “June of 1999 the latest ice core data from the Vostok site in Antarctica were published by Petit et al in the British journal Nature. These new data extended the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present (BP). The ice cores were drilled to over 3,600 meters. This is just over 2.2 miles deep. These new data double the length of the historical record.” - and the data from this reading shows the formentiond graph
    that makes no logic

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •