Atmospheric levels from ages ago are taken from tiny air bubbles in layers of ice I think.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Atmospheric levels from ages ago are taken from tiny air bubbles in layers of ice I think.
CO2 was 'discovered' as a chemical gas back in the 1750s and between the 1820s-30s many 'new' scientists were measuring all sorts of things in the composition of the atmosphere. Ice core data also helps confirm these readings.
In the 1890s a Swedish scientist Arrhenius caluculted the total volume of the gases in the atmosphere and developed equations which were based on the heat absorbtion properties of CO2 and other gases. He predicted with these equations that the Earths temprature would rise by 5-6C if CO2 levels were doubled. He thought that the burning of coal etc would do this, but that it would be 3000yrs before we had burnt enough coal.
Arrhenius was very much of the opinion that this would be a great thing to happen, as it would stop the world plunging back into another ice age (and make Sweden a warmer place especially in the winter).
In the 1890s a Swedish scientist Arrhenius caluculted the total volume of the gases in the atmosphere and developed equations which were based on the heat absorbtion properties of CO2 and other gases. He predicted with these equations that the Earths temprature would rise by 5-6C if CO2 levels were doubled. He thought that the burning of coal etc would do this, but that it would be 3000yrs before we had burnt enough coal.
Arrhenius was very much of the opinion that this would be a great thing to happen, as it would stop the world plunging back into another ice age (and make Sweden a warmer place especially in the winter).
Andy, as Bushwhacker says we can measure the atmospheric content by analysing the tiny air bubbles formed in layers of snow and ice observed from ice cores (one of the many ways of determining past climates) from the arctic/antarctic that we are able to work out the past climate of the plant going back millions of years. As that snow is compacted the layers get thinner and it can become harder to distinguish between the older layers.
Locum - like the 1st picture.
Last edited:
ok i see, so would 100% of the co2 remain trapped in the ice or would some leak out/decline over time? just covering all bases really, the earth has warmed and cooled without our hand in it for sure,so would it balance itself out once all fossil fuel is used up/stopped being used? im in two thoughts with this for sure,yep i agree we could be causing some effect how much i really dont think has been proved 100%,can we tell other countries(by we i mean the big users past and present) that they should stop using/reduce? Will we ourselves stop or just charge more for its use?think ive waffled enough on this thread and got myself nowhere.(still thinking same as when i started)
I have no idea what proportion of gas may or may not leak out of bubbles in ice.
However CO2 is a larger molecule than oxygen or hydrogen so if that were the case it would read higher in the past than it had been in realitly as the others would be able to escape more easily.
Yes, temps have gone up and down over time and they will always do so, until the sun expands to the extent that the earth is burned out. The issue at the moment is the rate of change and how we, and other species who are adapted to current atmospheric concentrations and climate patterns cope with a potential rate of change far faster than evolution (that surprisingly still disputed theory) can adapt too.
However CO2 is a larger molecule than oxygen or hydrogen so if that were the case it would read higher in the past than it had been in realitly as the others would be able to escape more easily.
Yes, temps have gone up and down over time and they will always do so, until the sun expands to the extent that the earth is burned out. The issue at the moment is the rate of change and how we, and other species who are adapted to current atmospheric concentrations and climate patterns cope with a potential rate of change far faster than evolution (that surprisingly still disputed theory) can adapt too.
However CO2 is significantly more soluble in water than N2, O2 or H2 and ice being just the solid state of water that increases the absorption of CO2 way above the 'escape factor' limitations of it's molecular size. The more so at low temperatures and at high pressures.
I for one would be staggered if the only people who realized this might have an impact on historical data, were three people (all of us lay climatologists and not qualified ones, perhaps?) posting on a bushcraft forum and strongly suspect absorption, dissolution and other gaseous transit are accounted for in the figures.
With that said... there have been some stark, starring and possibly deliberate omissions in the science behind some climate claims, so maybe not eh?
Sometimes, there is a zealous belief by those without the scientific background or who have not done the research to blindly follow the perceived herd and "overwhelming opinion" about a subject. So it is with global warming. One of the earlier posts relating to a resignation letter by a highly esteemed scientist should at least indicate that there is no unanimity about global warming, despite all the repeated claims to the contrary. There are hundreds - if not thousands - more of a similar mindset. A cold, hard look at the "Climategate" tapes is clear evidence of deliberate manipulation of base data on which the Kyoto accords and subsequent agreements based their decision upon.
As I've said before, I don't know whether there is a genuine global warming phenomenon occurring or not. And the absolute reality is that no-one else does either. THere's lots of contradictory hypotheses based on inadequate data, and all the computer modelling in the world can't come up with an accurate forecast more than 5 days ahead of time - despite having had decades to perfect their models. THere is still an inadequate understanding of the Sun's effect on weather (other than the fact that it is all-important). Recent studies of the impact on solar winds has reversed all previous hypotheses on this phenomenon, for example.
For those who try to retain an open mind, and particularly following the recent posts about CO2 impact on climate, I'd refer you to the following. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm For those who like titles, the "leader" of this paper is one Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.
This study at least has been peer-reviewed, and letters supporting it have been signed by 31,000 American scientists. Is it accurate? I don't know, but it does at least provide some interesting questions to think about.
Are you brave enough to read it and challenge your own perceptions? Or will you dismiss it - like those clergy rubbishing The Evolution of Species - because its easier to do so? Only you can answer that one!
As I've said before, I don't know whether there is a genuine global warming phenomenon occurring or not. And the absolute reality is that no-one else does either. THere's lots of contradictory hypotheses based on inadequate data, and all the computer modelling in the world can't come up with an accurate forecast more than 5 days ahead of time - despite having had decades to perfect their models. THere is still an inadequate understanding of the Sun's effect on weather (other than the fact that it is all-important). Recent studies of the impact on solar winds has reversed all previous hypotheses on this phenomenon, for example.
For those who try to retain an open mind, and particularly following the recent posts about CO2 impact on climate, I'd refer you to the following. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm For those who like titles, the "leader" of this paper is one Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.
This study at least has been peer-reviewed, and letters supporting it have been signed by 31,000 American scientists. Is it accurate? I don't know, but it does at least provide some interesting questions to think about.
Are you brave enough to read it and challenge your own perceptions? Or will you dismiss it - like those clergy rubbishing The Evolution of Species - because its easier to do so? Only you can answer that one!
Last edited:
The ego of man has a lot to answer for.
We may or may not of caused the current possible climate change, we may or may not be able to fix it.
One thing for sure though, the planet doesn't care, it will carry on doing it's thing, regardless of our input. We are merely a blip on the planets surface, all the concern about the planet is more to do with our own continuing existence on this planet and if we can survive the changes.
"We are monkeys with technology"
We may or may not of caused the current possible climate change, we may or may not be able to fix it.
One thing for sure though, the planet doesn't care, it will carry on doing it's thing, regardless of our input. We are merely a blip on the planets surface, all the concern about the planet is more to do with our own continuing existence on this planet and if we can survive the changes.
"We are monkeys with technology"
Hi Andy
Ive read to slide 16 before I really glazed over.
Its given me a few more questions....
If Ive read it right...
Its saying that global warming matches to the heat given from the sun?
The hotter it gets, the more things get hot and glaciers melt?
Its been a lot hotter than this before - as well as a lot colder and man has survived?
Water is rising?
CO2 doesnt seem to have made much difference to any of this?
Did I miss anything?
Er......
Is this doc disputed?
Ive read to slide 16 before I really glazed over.
Its given me a few more questions....
If Ive read it right...
Its saying that global warming matches to the heat given from the sun?
The hotter it gets, the more things get hot and glaciers melt?
Its been a lot hotter than this before - as well as a lot colder and man has survived?
Water is rising?
CO2 doesnt seem to have made much difference to any of this?
Did I miss anything?
Er......
Is this doc disputed?
I thought they were also looking at the methane gas from intensive farming especially the dairy and beef industries being a major implication to climate imbalances:yikes:
Do modern cattle numbers compare to the, now largely extinct, herds of African wildebeest and North American bison? Tricky one that
We are pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/
A pimple on the rear end of what's "out there"
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/
A pimple on the rear end of what's "out there"
Some of the latest studies on Solar impacts - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11480916
It is possible, contended Mike Lockwood of Reading University, that there was something special about the last solar cycle - that it could mark the end of an extended phase of relatively high output, and the transition into a less active phase.
"If you look back... 9-10,000 years, you find oscillations of the Sun between 'grand maxima' and 'grand minima'," he said.
"It's now emerging that the 'space age' has been a grand maximum; so my view is that the Sun is due to fall out of this and into a 'grand minimum', so I would not be surprised if in 50 years' time we find ourselves in conditions like the 'Maunder Minimum' [of the late 17th and early 18th Centuries] associated with the 'Little Ice Age'."
It is possible, contended Mike Lockwood of Reading University, that there was something special about the last solar cycle - that it could mark the end of an extended phase of relatively high output, and the transition into a less active phase.
"If you look back... 9-10,000 years, you find oscillations of the Sun between 'grand maxima' and 'grand minima'," he said.
"It's now emerging that the 'space age' has been a grand maximum; so my view is that the Sun is due to fall out of this and into a 'grand minimum', so I would not be surprised if in 50 years' time we find ourselves in conditions like the 'Maunder Minimum' [of the late 17th and early 18th Centuries] associated with the 'Little Ice Age'."
Er.....
Im now totally confused.
I now know how a greenhouse works and what greenhouse gasses are.
I also now know that we have been making CO2 since the 2nd world war.
The warming has been happening for 100 years or so and doesnt look like it matches with our burning of fossil fuels.
Its now the average temp its been for the last 3,000 years.
It might get warmer if the sun gives off more heat, or cooler if it doesnt,
Without greenhouse gasses - which include clouds, this place would be 33 degrees colder.
What have I missed or misunderstood?
Im now totally confused.
I now know how a greenhouse works and what greenhouse gasses are.
I also now know that we have been making CO2 since the 2nd world war.
The warming has been happening for 100 years or so and doesnt look like it matches with our burning of fossil fuels.
Its now the average temp its been for the last 3,000 years.
It might get warmer if the sun gives off more heat, or cooler if it doesnt,
Without greenhouse gasses - which include clouds, this place would be 33 degrees colder.
What have I missed or misunderstood?
Join the club!
No-one really knows. Lots of theories, many of them totally contradictory. And more coming on a daily basis as more scientific revidence arises - solar impacts as mentioned above being a classic example of this.
The only thing that really gets my goat in all of this is the dyed-in-the-wool fanatics who categorically state that global warming is a FACT, and everyone knows it/supported by all the science etc etc etc. Clearly this isn't the case, as some of the examples above would indicate.
It's unfounded hysteria like this - think Creationism in the USA as another example - which leads to really bad political and economic decisions. And it overwhelms focussing on genuine, unequivocal issues like global population growth, which IS happening, WILL have major impacts on pollution/exhaustion of resources/competition for scarce food and other commodities etc etc etc.
No-one really knows. Lots of theories, many of them totally contradictory. And more coming on a daily basis as more scientific revidence arises - solar impacts as mentioned above being a classic example of this.
The only thing that really gets my goat in all of this is the dyed-in-the-wool fanatics who categorically state that global warming is a FACT, and everyone knows it/supported by all the science etc etc etc. Clearly this isn't the case, as some of the examples above would indicate.
It's unfounded hysteria like this - think Creationism in the USA as another example - which leads to really bad political and economic decisions. And it overwhelms focussing on genuine, unequivocal issues like global population growth, which IS happening, WILL have major impacts on pollution/exhaustion of resources/competition for scarce food and other commodities etc etc etc.
- Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
I'm a little disappointed there wasn't an option for "I couldn't give a monkeys about global warming" in the poll.
Spend your life worrying about things that may or may not happen and you've had a pretty sad life.
Spend your life worrying about things that may or may not happen and you've had a pretty sad life.
