next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Chris, copy the figure to a graphics program (I used Corel Draw) and use a crop tool to run a vertical line across the graph (it helps to magnify it a bit). David's contention is clearly visible. For the spike 150,000 years ago, the 3 elements (temp, CH4, CO2) appear to have been pretty well in lockstep, but in every other case the temp rose before the CO2 and at the same time or before the CH4. In at least one case the temp reached its peak before the CO2 began to rise and then fell rapidly the whole time the CO2 rose. All of this argues, if one is concerned for science, that CO2 rises because of temperature rise (or that both rise around the same time due to some other cause), and CO2 does not show any noticeable tendency to raise the temperature. If it does have a greenhouse temperature raising effect, it is too small to show on this graph. The fact that in one spike the temperature began to fall before the CO2 began to rise argues against CO2 even having an additive effect of any significance to the temperature rise Even more interesting is the right hand figure, which shows CO2 and CH4 heading for the stratosphere (graphically speaking) at a time when temperature is levelling out (from very rapid increase to slow increase). It presumably speaks to the effect of human "civilization" on the abundance of CO2 and CH4, but it is contrary to the theory that the abundance of CO2 and CH4 is causing or will cause a further temperature spike. That may change, of course, if temperature climbs in the next years, but thus far the correlation appears to be in the fears of the theorists, not in the facts. The theories being propounded run contrary to the evidence which is shown, which in the science I was taught, discredits the theories. Just out of curiosity, why does nobody consider correlating what small warming we see to the heat production of humans. Cities are noticeably warmer than the surrounding countryside. Your home can make a mini-climate near it in which plants will grow which won't survive further away. Despite my efforts to insulate my house, snow melts near the house before it does further away. We have a vastly bigger world population that ever before, making heat in a myriad of ways. Given that the claimed temperature increases are very small, I can imagine that it might just be caused by our heat production. It would be a big task, I suspect, to put some measurement on that heat production and see how it would affect the average temps, but it might not be too hard for someone with access to the right info to give a ball park estimate. Don Codling > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Global Warming > Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:01:39 -0300 > From: Christopher Majka <c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca> > Reply-To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > References: <20080609191738.ofqz7ai5b2xw04w8@my5.dal.ca> > <484F07F3.9090603@glinx.com> > > > > Hi Dave, > > On 10-Jun-08, at 8:02 PM, David & Alison Webster wrote: > > > Figure 1a shows without doubt that temperature, CO2 & CH4 are > > related but--- temperature starts to increase BEFORE CO2 & CH4 > > start to increase. There may subsequently be positive feedback, but > > at least initially, higher temperatures are driving CO2 & CH4 > > increase not the converse. > > > > I suppose one could call this 'tceffe esuohneerg a' but it would > > be awfully difficult to pronounce. > > > You must have preternaturally acute vision to be able resolve this > from Figure 1a. :-> I'm looking at it at the moment and, as you point > out, does show a clear historical relationship of temperature, CO2, > and CH4 but the graph, which represents 800,000 years, is only 3.75" > wide on my screen. At that level of resolution, these graphs, set one > over the other, look absolutely co-incident to me. I tried printing > this out and running a vertical rule over it, but I don't see how one > could possibly discern whether temperature, carbon dioxide, or methane > are increasing before or after one another at this resolution. :-> > > There is a lot of very interesting information in this Nature article > by Ed Brook on paleoclimatic history. It's astonishing that we now > have an 800,000 year old climatic record, and even more amazing that > the IPICS (International Partners in Ice Core Sciences), has set > itself the target of establishing a continuous 1.5-million-year record > which they believe they can do from drilling at other sites in the > eastern Antarctic. Most germane to the present discussion on climate > change is Brook's statement that, "The fundamental conclusion that > today's concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue > in the ice-core record remains firm." > > Methane concentrations over the past 800,000 years have fluctuated > between 400 and 700 p.p.b. whereas presently they are spiking at 1,800 > p.p.m. (about triple the historical average), and all of this increase > appears to have taken place in the last century. Similarly, carbon > dixoide, which has fluctuated between 180 and 300 p.p.m. over the past > 800,000 years, is now in the range of 380 p.p.m., and again all of > this historically unprecedented increase appears to have taken place > in the last century. > > This is another important scientific finding that underscores the > dramatic scale of contemporary anthropogenic climate change. It is > science such as this that bears out the reality of climate change, and > not petitions one way or the other. These are sobering findings that > we cannot afford to ignore. > > All the best! > > Chris > > Christopher Majka - Atlantic Canada Coleoptera > http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/atlantic_coleoptera.html > c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca > > > >
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects