Climate Change & Global Warming

[paulb]

ive herd that they are movin north with the fish.

[ArabiaTerra]

But, since we're on that trend - what happened to the temprature (according to the graph above) during the post WW2 global industrial revolution?

I have a theory on that. Not a scientific theory, I might add, just purely a personal opinion.

 

There is a marked cooling that coincides with the climax and aftermath of WW2. Could it be that the fire-bombing of the cities of Germany and Japan along with the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused global temperatures to dip?

 

The global dimming effect and the cooling associated with it are well understood. The theory goes that we have been protecting ourselves from the worst effects of global warming because, along with the CO2 emissions, fossil fuel burning also releases soot and ash into the atmosphere which mitigates the warming caused by the CO2.

 

In late '44 and through '45 the bombing campaign against the axis powers reached its climax, hundreds of cities were destroyed by a combination of high explosives and incendiary bombs which caused massive fires and a few well known fire-storms such as Dresden, Hamburg and Darnschtadt, among others, in Europe and Tokyo and Kyoto, among others, in Japan. This climaxed with the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which caused a fire-storm in Hiroshima and a conflagration in Nagasaki. Is it unreasonable to postulate that the soot and ash released by these actions might have caused the cooling effect seen in the temperature record? Sort of a mini nuclear winter effect?

 

Anyway, those are just my own thoughts on the matter and I know of no scientific study which has made this connection. What do you think?

[paulb]

check the volcanic record for any big eruptions. 1 nucler bomb doest equal a small volcano.

[Malachy]

So, i shall refer to the National Acadamy of Sciences studies directly in the first instance : Surface Temperature Reconstructions

for the Last 2,000 Years

 

Here's the end of the piece you linked to:

In summary, large-scale surface temperature reconstructions are proving to be important tools in our understanding of global climate change. They contribute evidence that allows us to say, with a high level of confidence, that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period

during the preceding four centuries.

 

Am I missing something? I thought you were trying to say globaly warming wasn't happening.

[ArabiaTerra]

check the volcanic record for any big eruptions. 1 nucler bomb doest equal a small volcano.

Good point. The last large eruption of Vesuvius occurred in 1944, so that would have contributed as well.

[paulb]

but thats just saying the earth is warming from a cold period. this is based on tree ring data but i dont know enough to check it out.

http://www.c-pol.com/Fun/Blog/Loehle2007small.gif

thats why greenland was populated and later abandoned by the norse.

just found this as well

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg

so there is an increase but only some is man made. lot more complicated than just mankinds fault.

the changes caused the ice ages so if the cycle keeps on we will be grad for any warming we can get. by the look of it in the next few thousand years.

[ArabiaTerra]

So, i responded, and would apreciate if some "believers" would do so in kind to my previous question regarding the justification of the suppression of industrial development in the third world, due to its theoretical impact on global warming.

I have never advocated the suppression of industrial development anywhere. However I am opposed to industrial development using fossil fuels as a power source anywhere, 1st, 2nd or 3rd world because that's what's killing the planet.

 

It's purely the burning of fossil fuels I am opposed to, not development, industrial or otherwise.

[ArabiaTerra]

I won't reproduce Paulb's second graph here to save space, but note how the CO2 and temperature levels march in step.

 

Then consider that the CO2 level has never been higher than 300ppm over the last 400,000 years. Now consider the current level of CO2 (November 2007) was measured as 384ppm.

 

Is this not a cause for serious alarm?

[paulb]

what percentage will be lost from the fossil record of co2. yes its likely to cause global warming but once the cycle changes we then have very big problems coming our way.

[Spinner72]

because despite what many people seem to think, we do actually rely on our environment functioning correctly in order for our species to survive.

 

Of course we do, but to believe that the human species is for some reason so much more powerful than all the others which have flourished and become extinct, to the extent that they can reverse potentially deadly changes to our ever evolving planet, is a little far-fetched don't you agree?

 

In summary, large-scale surface temperature reconstructions are proving to be important tools in our understanding of global climate change. They contribute evidence that allows us to say, with a high level of confidence, that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period

during the preceding four centuries.

 

Am I missing something? I thought you were trying to say globaly warming wasn't happening.

 

Not at all. My problem is with the doom and gloom religion-like methodology with which people are being brainwashed into believing that this is all our fault and that we will burn in hell (well, fry to a crisp here) if we don't change, and that we should not allow developing coutries to develop as we did (despite the fact it kick-started a cooler period) because of the damage it will cause.

 

That study shows what happens of we look at things from 1000 years further back. What would we see if we went back 100,000? Or, indeed, if we could look forward 100,000 years.

 

Would this blip we're having now seem so relevant?

 

It's nature - and still would be even if we were making a significant difference - so don't tear yourself apart worrying about it, enjoy life, and nature will look after itself, and get rid of us, if necessary, in the process..

[Malachy]

That study shows what happens of we look at things from 1000 years further back. What would we see if we went back 100,000? Or, indeed, if we could look forward 100,000 years.

 

Would this blip we're having now seem so relevant?

 

It's nature - and still would be even if we were making a significant difference - so don't tear yourself apart worrying about it, enjoy life, and nature will look after itself, and get rid of us, if necessary, in the process..

 

It is very useful to look back further, yes, you're right. Indeed, climate scientists have done exactly that, and they have identified a point in the planet's history when the Earth warmed at roughly the same pace it is warming now. In fact, not quite as fast, but almost. That was 250,000 years ago, and the result of that warming was that, in a fairly short space of time, 95% of species in the sea became extinct and around 75% of land species. It's known as the Permian-Triassic Extinction. It's a very interesting example.

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/hotgreen.htm

 

> Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason

> why Greenland 's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling

> underground magma to heat the ice.

>

> “Crustal heat flow is still one of the unknowns -- and it's a fairly

> significant one, according to our preliminary results.â€

 

It can be hard to figure out just whats causing what, as we still know rather a little about how our planet works.

 

But I would agree, being cautious would be a sensible stratagy to take.

 

 

> I know i will get shot down for saying this, but mans uncontrolled

> mass polluting of the planet is at this time more of a concern than

> Global warming.IMHO.

 

Agreed, this is perhaps what concerns me the most, and it goes almost hand in hand with Global Warming, eg. reduce one, you reduce the other too.

 

But sadly there is no great, lets stop polluting our backyard campaign going on, so one may as well hijack some other bandwagon and do what you can to influence some sensible decisions to reduce pollution.

 

 

> This is a cycle which operates over millions of years, snapping a

> miniscule part of the earths 4.5 Billion year development and presenting

> it as evidence is the most fundimentally flawed aspect of almost all

> global warming theorys.

 

Agreed, listen to one lot of scientists and they tell you we are about to have an iceage, listen to another lot and they think the oppersite! Its still unclear whose right and whose wrong and why.

 

But, as I said before, we can be cautious just in case, instead of building a new coal power station, perhaps build a nuclear one instead.

 

Though, even that thinking might be wrong..

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/carbon-dioxide-scrubber-captures-greenhouse-gases-17473.html

 

> This means that if you used electricity from a coal-fired power plant,

> for every unit of electricity you used to operate the capture machine,

> you'd be capturing 10 times as much CO2 as the power plant emitted

> making that much electricity,"

 

 

Thats why it can be so hard to figure out what is the right course of action to take at any one time, do we do this, or that..

 

Stop dumping our rubbish in the sea, thats probably a good start, stop filling the air with harmful chemicals, thats probably a good idea too, stop burying hazardious waste in the ground, that too.

 

But, thats difficult as we rely on all of those for our livestyles, so we need to change, a little less pollution as we alter our industires to be cleaner.

[Styles]

I just met a sooth moother thats moved here tonight and told them our winters are far better than they used to be far less snow, so why it a bad think? I think like anything we have to adapt, if you cant, maybe u should not be long for the new future? I like the new future than the old.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

> Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason

> why Greenland 's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling

> underground magma to heat the ice.

 

That'll be the Earth expanding. Maybe we should move back to mars before she blows.

Whit tinks doo AT?

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

But I thought the earth as it cooled was shrinking ?