Global Warming - Moved

mikey
mikey
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 4,657
Credit: 477,800,608
RAC: 106,944

RE: RE: ... Did you see

Message 93283 in response to message 93281

Quote:
Quote:
...
Did you see the Archeology news where some student was mapping old settlements in England and they found a settlement wall that extended into the water? They did some research and found a settlement under almost 100 feet of water out into the English Channel! Now since grown man did not have gills either the land sank or the water rose, in this case the water rose to cover the settlement, the settlement is pre-Viking. They know the water rose because they can document the movement of the settlement over time towards what today is dry land. Of course the study of the settlement does not take into account why the water rose, just that it did in fact rise.

Lets see. We know there was no fossil fuel involved. I assume that is a given.

So the question is whether it was sea level rise or land subsidence. There are literally hundreds of examples of the latter in historical times but no examples of the former.

If it were sea level rise then it would have risen all over the world. Would I be presumptuous in expecting a hundred foot sea level rise all around the world?

If I am not being presumptuous in that expectation should I not expect to find all coastal cities prior to this event also 100 feet under water? Would I not expect all the coastlines around the world to have changed beyond recognition?

If I am not being bumptiously presumptuous should I not be curious how this world wide disaster a) escaped mention, b) ask after who cleaned up all the flooded coastal cities around the world, and c) why they only missed this one town in Britain?

I think there is a problem here, in one message you said "I mean there is no question the sea level was once 300 feet lower than it is today. I have been looking for a good way to visualize it for some time as it directly impacts human migration around the world during the ice age." And then in this message you question me as to whether a sea level rise was indeed true! ALL I DID was point out an observation made by some kid with a gps thingy and how he had found a wall that led to a settlement that is now underwater and that the water had risen over time to cover it. YES the water ROSE, the land did NOT go down, that they CAN and DID prove thru their research into the site.

As for large "inland beaches" I believe, but cannot point out any article saying so right now, that they have found those in the past is areas that are now desert, such as the American Desert. There are also studies stating that the Grand Canyon was mostly carved out during a very large water event as opposed to hundreds of millions of years. Although their article also states that the long term effects also indicate continued erosion from water.

None of this relates to anything that man created or caused, that was not the whole point of my posts. The point of my posts was to say that due to the very long term nature of climate change it is not possible to say with any kind of certainty that 'man' has caused anything that nature has not also caused, or that 'man' has even had an effect on the Earth to the extent possible to effect climate change in this manner. Sure it is warmer now than it was 10,000 years ago, but is that caused by 'man' or nature?

ML1
ML1
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 334
Credit: 52,397,382
RAC: 1,859

RE: ... I think there is a

Message 93284 in response to message 93283

Quote:
... I think there is a problem here, in one message you said "I mean there is no question the sea level was once 300 feet lower than it is today. I have been looking for a good way to visualize it for some time as it directly impacts human migration around the world during the ice age." And then in this message you question me as to whether a sea level rise was indeed true! ...

Welcome the Matt's world of contrary confusions. You will find he is very fond of moving the goal posts also. I've tried him to follow a consistent train of thoughts and facts, and he can't. It spoils his game of randomly stirring up an argument into confusion. It's just like a game of misusing physical units to prove anything you like including that one unit of light equals a flying pig and three angels. He is very good at that.

Quote:
... None of this relates to anything that man created or caused, that was not the whole point of my posts. The point of my posts was to say that due to the very long term nature of climate change it is not possible to say with any kind of certainty that 'man' has caused anything that nature has not also caused, or that 'man' has even had an effect on the Earth to the extent possible to effect climate change in this manner. Sure it is warmer now than it was 10,000 years ago, but is that caused by 'man' or nature?

A start is to look at the step-wise changes seen in our world from just over 200 years ago. Some scientists, engineers, doctors at that time noticed the changes due to the new industrial revolution and saw how industrial expansion can outstrip all available resources. At least one scientist of the day hypothesised that the industrial scale generation of CO2 could/might cause global warming.

Industrial generated global warming is a very old and well researched idea. 200 years on, we now have ever increasing observations worldwide that we are steadily increasing the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. After all, a few thousand million tons of industrial CO2 output each year has to go somewhere, and our atmosphere is finite.

For just one example, take the famous CO2 concentration measurements from Mauna Loa and draw the straight line graph back in time. At what date does it intercept the base line CO2 concentration that had been constant for the previous few thousand years for our atmosphere?

I anticipate that Matt will claim that to be all of no significance, yet he can offer no evidence that we can alter CO2 concentration without any consequence...

Man-made global warming is already moving on to being a world political problem. It is also a game of convincing those that blindly take a 'local backyard view', or just blindly believe "It just can't be so".

The question is whether we can do something positive about global warming before too many tipping points are tripped that then push us over into a whole new world climate. Such change will be disruptive, deadly, and expensive...

It's all our only planet.
Martin

Powered by: Mageia5
See & try out your OS Freedom! Linux Voice
The Future is what We all make IT [url=http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html](GPLv3

ML1
ML1
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 334
Credit: 52,397,382
RAC: 1,859

RE: RE: Found a link to

Message 93285 in response to message 93263

Quote:
Quote:
Found a link to the NYTimes article on Mauna Loa:
Mauna Loa

Ah, Mr Keeling. That link makes much better sense ... it alas doesn't mention why a measurement on top of a regularly outgassing volcano is a good place to do that, or how to account for otherwise. I don't disbelieve that CO2 is going up, not at all, but does anyone know where this type of thing has been done well away from local CO2 sources? I do vaguely remember a mention of someone in my youth who did this on the western coast of Tasmania, I think, no where near anything volcanic, human habitation, marshes etc and receiving air straight from the Roaring Forties.

The question there is whether the volume of the outgassing from the volcano is significant or not for the measurements being made. I'm sure the scientists at the observatory there have been diligent enough to look at that, and also the rest of the science community have been questioning enough to ask about that...

Or are conspiracy theories much more fun?

Quote:
( edit ) Here's the primary record from Scripps for CO2. Specifically this one for Mauna Loa. You'll note that the South Pole data are rather lower by about 20% or so, but I'd reckon it's reasonable to assume something like sublimation at such lower temperatures. If you look at the data from other sites like the various Pacific Islands ( Samoa say ) they all show the same trend, so that is a good consistent indicator, but as far as I can tell are all somewhat lower than Mauna Loa. So if you put that excess down as a local volcano effect then the rising trend is still quite clear. There. Homework done .... :-)

For those wishing a first quick look, see the plots from that site for Mauna Loa and South Pole

I would expect the south pole to be remote from all significant CO2 sources. I'd doubt that it gets cold enough to experience CO2 frost on earth (a common feature on Mars for comparison). However, the south pole does suffer air circulation patterns that reduces mixing from the rest of the world... Is the slightly lower CO2 concentration measured at the south pole due to any or all of:

1: lower altitude;
2: colder temperatures;
3: reduced atmospheric circulation causing a lag for changes to be seen at the south pole compared to the changes observed elsewhere;
4: a large local CO2 sink;
5: instrument bias.

?

Glib note: The mere fact that the Mauna Loa data clearly shows the northern hemisphere plant growth cycles suggests that any volcanic influence is small or negligible in the measurements.

It's our only planet,
Martin

Powered by: Mageia5
See & try out your OS Freedom! Linux Voice
The Future is what We all make IT [url=http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html](GPLv3

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,018
Credit: 93,571,627
RAC: 183,684

Martin, this is you second

Martin, this is you second attempt at flame baiting Matt with ad-hominem attacks and your last warning. I now regret not moderating earlier, but I allowed it due to the importance of the topic and respect for you and your views ( that is, I wanted to hear them ) : despite your evident emotional bursts of annoyance or that I have not agreed with some of your views.

But I digress.

This thread is now locked. It's had a good 18 month run, and I can easily predict where it will go soon if not checked. It has already breached the 'physics or astronomy' remit restriction for this board and 'related to Einstein@Home or BOINC' for the site. That's entirely my fault for allowing and even encouraging that ( more fool me ) and for that I apologise to contributors and project management. I have erred and breached my designated moderator role.

However there is still good advice for us all here :

- if you really don't like someone, then don't read their posts

- if you think someone is a troll, then don't feed them

- if you have a contrary view, express it in personally neutral terms

- if you can't express intellectual disagreement in personally neutral terms, then don't reply at all

I explain very few moderation decisions, and I only outline this here to defray any paranoia ( ie. regarding suppression ) that always seems to lurk around this topic. In any case there is no shortage of online pie fights, or worse, elsewhere existing to service this or any/many other topics.

So there you go! We turnover to a new page with the New Year, and E@H is now climatology free ( as it should always have been ).

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.