So... now the debate's over? (Global warming) [NA]

[Greebo]

I don't think Joe would take it as an insult to be compared with Rush.

Probably not.

But when someone from the opposite political spectrum as Limbaugh compares someone with Limbaugh, it's not meant as a compliment.

 

[poadeleted3]

I don't think Joe would take it as an insult to be compared with Rush.

Actually, Joe doesn't listen to Rush, and hasn't been impressed when he has. Trying to lump all conservatives into one pool, stereotyping all of us, is a tactic that has cost liberals the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives. Better to try to view us as thinking individuals (thought the comment has been made by a poster on this site that conservatives are not capable of individual thought) instead of a giant group of "people who don't work for a living,""mostly White Christians," etc. Though the fact that the latter comment was supposed to be an insult says volumes in and of itself.... Joe is actually not pleased with the current state of US politics, because the Democratic leadership has seperated itself from it's Democratic membership, driving them to vote Republican. We face the danger of becoming a one party nation, which would be disastrous for what freedoms we have left. Frankly, though, if Howard Dean and his supporters aren't ousted, I think it more likely that Democrats and some Republicans will form a new, viable party. The nation has been nibbling at the edges of that for a couple decades, and it would be a very good thing to revitalize our political system, and maybe grabbing back a little of the power that has been siezed from the people.

Not that this actually has much to do with global warming

 

[judypilot]

over and over every 10 or so thousand years

Or less. Sometimes much less. Yes (in response to another post), the concern is rate of change, but that's only because we haven't nailed down comparable rates of change in the geologic record. However, just because we haven't nailed them down, doesn't mean they didn't occur. They are merely below the resolution of our dating methods. In fact, many events have been shown to have been at much higher rates than we thought until we improved the dating methods. No reason to think that, as our dating methods continue to improve, we won't eventually find similar rates of change. There are a number of events that keep getting shorter and shorter the better our dating gets.

Judy

 

[Ken Ibold]

There are a number of events that keep getting shorter and shorter the better our dating gets.

Does this apply to college students as well?

 

[Brian Austin]

There are a number of events that keep getting shorter and shorter the better our dating gets.

Yeah, I'd have to say that the better I dated, the shorter the interval between...events occured.

 

[judypilot]

Yeah, I'd have to say that the better I dated, the shorter the interval between...events occured.

Ken and Brian--ever the comedians.

Judy

 

[mmthomas]

I know nothing about global warming, but I am in the middle of reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" which, between bouts of silly adventures, has long passages in which a protagonist (portrayed as very smart) debates the merits of the global warming with environmentalists (portarayed as very naive). The research behind the novel seems impressive, but the story itself is so unbelievable I don't know how trustworthy it is. Regardless, the book is an entertaining way to pass some time while at the same time seeing an interesting point of view on the subject.

 

[Brian Austin]

Crichton's science always makes for interesting novels but personally I think he puts his own spin on things.

 

[Henning]

Or less. Sometimes much less. Yes (in response to another post), the concern is rate of change, but that's only because we haven't nailed down comparable rates of change in the geologic record. However, just because we haven't nailed them down, doesn't mean they didn't occur. They are merely below the resolution of our dating methods. In fact, many events have been shown to have been at much higher rates than we thought until we improved the dating methods. No reason to think that, as our dating methods continue to improve, we won't eventually find similar rates of change. There are a number of events that keep getting shorter and shorter the better our dating gets.

Judy

That's not completely true though. I ran an Icebreaker some years ago for resupply and research to Antarctica. They were getting some very good stuff from ice cores. The scientists we had aboard also sampled glacial cores on all the other continents (that have glaciers) and were putting together some good and valid data that set a pretty good time line by dating stuff that was in the ice.

 

[BruceAir]

Re: So... now the debate's over? Crichton's Book

A detailed analysis of Crichton's book is available at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

 

[PoAdeleted5]

One could argue cow omissions is a manmade situation

Left to their own devices cattle would populate far less of the planet and far less rain-forest forest would be cleared to make room for ranches.

What about the Bison which roamed the plains of North America? It would seem that they outnumbered the current supply of domestic cattle. Surely, they fart as much or more than a Holstein.

 

[Henning]

What about the Bison which roamed the plains of North America? It would seem that they outnumbered the current supply of domestic cattle. Surely, they fart as much or more than a Holstein.

I doubt that a naturaly sustained population of Bison and other wild species came anywhere near our current population of cattle and other domesticated livestock, not even close.

 

[judypilot]

That's not completely true though. I ran an Icebreaker some years ago for resupply and research to Antarctica. They were getting some very good stuff from ice cores. The scientists we had aboard also sampled glacial cores on all the other continents (that have glaciers) and were putting together some good and valid data that set a pretty good time line by dating stuff that was in the ice.

Doug,

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. What you said doesn't contradict what I said, so I don't understand the "not completely true part". Ice cores are one of the ways we're improving the resolution of the documented record, and in fact, ice cores have helped narrow the time frame for some events, showing that changes can occur at very high rates even without the influence of human activities.

The problem with ice cores is they don't go very far back in time. I don't keep up with that literature, but I think the longest one only goes back about 10,000 years (I'm not even sure about that). The last 10,000 years, but virtue of the fact that the Earth had ice caps (hence the ice cores), is demonstrably atypical for climate on Earth since, as I said, there haven't been ice caps for most of Earth history. There is evidence of some events that happened very quickly in the older geologic record, too old for ice cores. It was these events that I was referring to.

Judy

 

[Jeff Oslick]

The Vostok Ice Core record now extends back some 400,000 years.
http://physics.gallaudet.edu/vostok/

Today's lecture in my Oceanography class touches on CO2 and global warming. So, class, here is today's lecture...

Here's the quick way of summarizing the rate-of-change issue:

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, lets say 200 years ago (rounded) CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to almost 370 ppm. That is a rate of change of about 0.45 ppm per year.

According to ice core records, CO2 during the last glacial period, ending 17,000 years ago (-ish) was about 190 ppm. It took some 6,000 years for CO2 concentrations to go from 190 ppm to 280 ppm, a rate of change of about 0.015 ppm per year, or about 30 times slower than what has been observed since the start of the industrial revolution.

Even during the previous warmest interglacial period, about 125,000 years ago, CO2 concentrations never went over 300 ppm.

We have actually burned enough CO2 in the form of fossil fuels that the atmospheric increase should have been twice what is observed. The best estimates for where the balance of the CO2 went is into the oceans. The capacity for the oceans to hold this extra CO2 in the long term is not well known. Ocean mixing times are very long, on the order of a thousand years, so it isn't clear at all what the consequences will be. It is the knowledge that it is unlikely that this fast rate of change has happen before that has scientist so concerned about the consequences.


Jeff

 

[Henning]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. What you said doesn't contradict what I said, so I don't understand the "not completely true part". Judy

Sorry I wasn't clear, what I contradict is the lack of accuracy that was alluded to. What I have seen was very acurate time line wise.