NationStates Jolt Archive

I am asking a question. I am "seeking" a source. What besides the Co2 could be responsible for today;s heat?

You mentioned the Paleo record. looking back 12,500 years we had a freeze, some thawing, another freeze, then a steady thaw. With the long intervals between these periods and the number of volcanoes in the world, you have to blame volcanoes for at least some of the ice ages. The super volcanoes DO go off from time to time and will continue to do so. We also DO get hit by space bodies. (MN-4 is going to be a close one on April 13, 2036) These also cause ice ages. Warmer solar activity can bring about some warming.

If you just step back and look at ancient history, not as an exact, but the most likely, you can see how the paterns fit. The things that are suppose to happen had to happen sometime. ;)

Sorry, didn't realize you were asking and not saying. There is a lot of material out there about periodicities during the Holocene. You can start with G. Bond (97,99, 01) about a quasi 1500 year cycle. The search phrase you probably want to use is millennial scale variability. During the glacial periods it is manifested as a Dansgaard-Oeschger Cycle. During the Holocene the magnitude of these events really drops out however they might still exist (see bonds work above, also could look up carl wunsch).

As for the paleorecord, you better call your buddy because you are way off base. The glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled largely by changes in insolation. Volcanoes do not operate on these time periods. The largest super volcanoes may act as coolers for a year or so but its not even close to the magnitude of glacial to interglacial cycles. Comet and meteor impacts DO NOT cause ice ages. Sorry but you couldn't be further from the truth. Again, these things cool because they throw stuff into the upper atmosphere but you have to keep feeding the atmosphere with material or it falls.

I am telling you there is on record this type of millennial scale variability in the paleorecord. Since the temperature change we have seen to date is close to the error of the paleorecord proxies have we really seen anything unprecedented?

Lets be very clear. I think that CO2 is working on global temps, however what exactly comes from CO2 and what is part of the natural variability is the issue. I am after just how sensitive the climate is to increased CO2 levels

Sorry, didn't realize you were asking and not saying. There is a lot of material out there about periodicities during the Holocene. You can start with G. Bond (97,99, 01) about a quasi 1500 year cycle. The search phrase you probably want to use is millennial scale variability. During the glacial periods it is manifested as a Dansgaard-Oeschger Cycle. During the Holocene the magnitude of these events really drops out however they might still exist (see bonds work above, also could look up carl wunsch).

An explination of what happened long ago. But not possible to be the reason today. The excess solar activity would be easy to detect.

As for the paleorecord, you better call your buddy because you are way off base. The glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled largely by changes in insolation. Volcanoes do not operate on these time periods. The largest super volcanoes may act as coolers for a year or so but its not even close to the magnitude of glacial to interglacial cycles. Comet and meteor impacts DO NOT cause ice ages. Sorry but you couldn't be further from the truth. Again, these things cool because they throw stuff into the upper atmosphere but you have to keep feeding the atmosphere with material or it falls.

I am telling you there is on record this type of millennial scale variability in the paleorecord. Since the temperature change we have seen to date is close to the error of the paleorecord proxies have we really seen anything unprecedented?


I dont think you appreciate just how powerful a super volcano can be.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2024140/posts
http://www.metatech.org/A06/world_catastrophe_super_volcano.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

Or how much effect a space body strike can have.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070924172959.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/asteroids

Lets be very clear. I think that CO2 is working on global temps, however what exactly comes from CO2 and what is part of the natural variability is the issue. I am after just how sensitive the climate is to increased CO2 levels
Aren't today's headlines an answer as to how sensitive and delicate our climate is?

An explination of what happened long ago. But not possible to be the reason today. The excess solar activity would be easy to detect.

I dont think you appreciate just how powerful a super volcano can be.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2024140/posts
http://www.metatech.org/A06/world_catastrophe_super_volcano.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

Or how much effect a space body strike can have.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070924172959.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/asteroids

No there is no excess in solar activity responsible for these events. The 10Be and 14C don't show any variations on these time scales. Like I said earlier no one knows why they exist... It might be related to solar but there has to be crazy feedback loops because the change in solar isn't enough to force climate on millennial scales.

As for your super volcanoes. Tambora was a super volcano and it had a 1-2 year impact on climate. It wasn't as much as a glacial/interglacial transition in terms of temperature. This whole idea that super volcanoes and meteors can cause "nuclear winter" is an idea that hangs around but today's models suggest they have been over played. Look up Alan Robock at Rutgers. He is an IPCC contributor, this is his specialty.

As for the Younger Dryas 1) its not of the magnitude of glacial to interglacial 2) there are several hundred papers written to the effect that the YD is a change in ocean circulation (start with Broecker + Younger Dryas in google) so there are other ideas out there as to the mechanism 3) if there was a huge strike then, why isn't the ash/fallout in the greenland ice core 4) there have been countless other impacts, why are they not responsible for extensions and climate change (you might argue the K/T. and I might buy that one however, what about say the Chesapeake Impact crater)?

Aren't today's headlines an answer as to how sensitive and delicate our climate is?

NO! Show me how any of this is unusual. The only thing you know 100% is that CO2 is higher now than during the entire Holocene.

How that manifests its self in the system is something completely different.

Well i guess its a good thing that we are not dealing with weather.
And I would love to see what he proved since everything he has ever published under is theory.

yes only under theory just like gravity and evolution.

yes only under theory just like gravity and evolution.


There is a large difference between theory and proof... I care about correctness.

No there is no excess in solar activity responsible for these events. The 10Be and 14C don't show any variations on these time scales. Like I said earlier no one knows why they exist... It might be related to solar but there has to be crazy feedback loops because the change in solar isn't enough to force climate on millennial scales.

As for your super volcanoes. Tambora was a super volcano and it had a 1-2 year impact on climate. It wasn't as much as a glacial/interglacial transition in terms of temperature. This whole idea that super volcanoes and meteors can cause "nuclear winter" is an idea that hangs around but today's models suggest they have been over played. Look up Alan Robock at Rutgers. He is an IPCC contributor, this is his specialty.

As for the Younger Dryas 1) its not of the magnitude of glacial to interglacial 2) there are several hundred papers written to the effect that the YD is a change in ocean circulation (start with Broecker + Younger Dryas in google) so there are other ideas out there as to the mechanism 3) if there was a huge strike then, why isn't the ash/fallout in the greenland ice core 4) there have been countless other impacts, why are they not responsible for extensions and climate change (you might argue the K/T. and I might buy that one however, what about say the Chesapeake Impact crater)?

The YD caused by an ocean effect IS a very likely scenereo since it followed a great thaw. (all the fresh water melting into the salt water) We really can't tell how many super volcanoes have errupted or how many space strikes. The K/T or something like Yellowstone is what I was refering to. These type of volcanoes didn't do it all but had to be responsible a couple-few times.

If a volcano or space body strikes during a normal cooler era (all 3 glacial M cycles, solar cycle or even during a powerful La Nina) then the ice age will be more severe. What if a space body ever struck a super volcano? That would have been more than a cleanup on isle 5.

The YD caused by an ocean effect IS a very likely scenereo since it followed a great thaw. (all the fresh water melting into the salt water) We really can't tell how many super volcanoes have errupted or how many space strikes. The K/T or something like Yellowstone is what I was refering to. These type of volcanoes didn't do it all but had to be responsible a couple-few times.

If a volcano or space body strikes during a normal cooler era (all 3 glacial M cycles, solar cycle or even during a powerful La Nina) then the ice age will be more severe. What if a space body ever struck a super volcano? That would have been more than a cleanup on isle 5.

we have a really good idea how many super volcanoes and impacts there have been. For example, the Chicxulub crater is readily seen on seismic. There are spheruals found all over North America along with a spike in iridium found in the same layer that was first identified if i remember correctly in Italy. There has been global evidence found of the fallout. But lets be very clear, many people have shown that the mass extinction event was already underway and the impact is what pushed them over the edge. As for climate, http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~feibel/Image10.gif. Show me where that meteor really disrupted the swing of things.

As for volcanoes it also doesn't work. Yes on a small scale short time period they can over print climate however the types of resultant change are more directly compared with ENSO, they and not even in the same ball park in magnitude between ice ages and interglacials. I don't care what the history channel says, their super volcano scenario is wrong (so is there LIA scenario)

In order to grasp the importance of these things you need to think like a geologist. If you are in a glacial for 20 thousand years, do you really think that a volcano that makes you 2-3 degrees cooler for 2 years really matters? It might make life hard but its not going to cause a mass extinction event. If it did would be able to correlate ash to extinction events in the the record.

we have a really good idea how many super volcanoes and impacts there have been. For example, the Chicxulub crater is readily seen on seismic. There are spheruals found all over North America along with a spike in iridium found in the same layer that was first identified if i remember correctly in Italy. There has been global evidence found of the fallout. But lets be very clear, many people have shown that the mass extinction event was already underway and the impact is what pushed them over the edge. As for climate, http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~feibel/Image10.gif. Show me where that meteor really disrupted the swing of things.

As for volcanoes it also doesn't work. Yes on a small scale short time period they can over print climate however the types of resultant change are more directly compared with ENSO, they and not even in the same ball park in magnitude between ice ages and interglacials. I don't care what the history channel says, their super volcano scenario is wrong (so is there LIA scenario)

In order to grasp the importance of these things you need to think like a geologist. If you are in a glacial for 20 thousand years, do you really think that a volcano that makes you 2-3 degrees cooler for 2 years really matters? It might make life hard but its not going to cause a mass extinction event. If it did would be able to correlate ash to extinction events in the the record.

Still a lot of other theories about meteors, volcanoes and mass extinctions.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/study_volcanoes_in_india_not_a_meteor_killed_the_dinosaurs

And maybe not one meteor but a barrage of them.
http://osdir.com/ml/science.dinosaurs.general/2003-03/msg00112.html

This argument cracks me up. Next I'll be able to claim that my clothes dry naturally in a tumble dryer on the grounds that I used to dry my clothes on an airer.

Or something like. I don't see any dinosaurs around here. Dinosaurs are a myth concocted by the liberal media to steal our taxes and control the world11!1!!!!

Still a lot of other theories about meteors, volcanoes and mass extinctions.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/study_volcanoes_in_india_not_a_meteor_killed_the_dinosaurs

And maybe not one meteor but a barrage of them.
http://osdir.com/ml/science.dinosaurs.general/2003-03/msg00112.html

Thats fine but most of these theories are related to one event (k/t) because of the dinosaurs. Dinos go extinct, people find big meteor impact suggesting the two are related and a theory is born. Others correlate said theory by eject seen around the globe. Others go in search of other impact structures, and find they are not related to extinction events.

I am not saying k/t wasn't caused by the a meteor strike, I am saying that there have been lots of strikes where no extinction event occurred. Maybe there is a fundamental difference between K/t and elsewhere. Did you look at the graph I showed? Did you see anything strange climatically across the k/t? I don't want to get into the debate on what killed the dinos, thats for another thread. I am saying that the impacts and volcanoes do very little to long term climate and they really don't create ice ages. Now if you want to talk tectonics and mantle driven volcanism (global not singular volcanism thats a different story completely).

There is a large difference between theory and proof... I care about correctness.

Um... actually, when dealing with Scientific theories, there isn't. Gravity is a theory. So is evolution. In science, a theory is an explanation/idea that is well-supported by solid evidence and has not been refuted. All theories are open to refutation if counter-evidence can be found that stands up to intensive scrutiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lorenz

What I find interesting is that he proved mathematically that it is impossible to predict how most natural phenomena (weather in particular) will evolve long-term, no matter how much information is known about them, no matter how complex and detailed the model, or how powerful the simulation computer may be.

I guess we'll throw mathematical proof in the trash can of science.

Actually, Lorenz' work in chaos mathematics was responsible for making more accurate models, not proving that models don't work.

Here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/butterflies-tornadoes-and-climate-modelling/):

Even though the model used by Lorenz was very simple (just three variables and three equations), the same sensitivity to initial conditions is seen in all weather and climate models and is a ubiquitous phenomenon in many complex non-linear flows. It is therefore usually assumed that the real atmosphere also has this property. However, as Lorenz himself acknowledged in 1972, this is not directly provable (and indeed, at least one meteorologist doesn't think it does even though most everyone else does). Its existence in climate models is nonetheless easily demonstratable.

But how can climate be predictable if weather is chaotic? The trick lies in the statistics. In those same models that demonstrate the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it turns out that the long term means and other moments are stable. This is equivalent to the 'butterfly' pattern seen in the figure above being statistically independent of how you started the calculation. The lobes and their relative position don't change if you run the model long enough. Climate change then is equivalent seeing how the structure changes, while not being too concerned about the specific trajectory you are on.

Another way of saying it is that for the climate problem, the weather (or the individual trajectory) is the noise. If you are trying to find the common signal that is a signature of a particular forcing then averaging over a number of simulations with different weather works rather well. (There is a long standing quote in science - "one person's noise is another person's signal" which is certainly apropos here. Climate modellers don't average over ensemble members because they think that weather isn't important, they do it because it gives robust estimates of the signal they are usually looking for.)

The ensemble approach, and indeed the multi-model ensemble approach, used in IPCC then derives directly from Lorenz's insights into his serendipitous numerical problem.

If you are going to attempt to use scientific authorities to bolster your case, at least make sure that their science is saying what you think it is saying.

Thats fine but most of these theories are related to one event (k/t) because of the dinosaurs. Dinos go extinct, people find big meteor impact suggesting the two are related and a theory is born. Others correlate said theory by eject seen around the globe. Others go in search of other impact structures, and find they are not related to extinction events.

I am not saying k/t wasn't caused by the a meteor strike, I am saying that there have been lots of strikes where no extinction event occurred. Maybe there is a fundamental difference between K/t and elsewhere. Did you look at the graph I showed? Did you see anything strange climatically across the k/t? I don't want to get into the debate on what killed the dinos, thats for another thread. I am saying that the impacts and volcanoes do very little to long term climate and they really don't create ice ages. Now if you want to talk tectonics and mantle driven volcanism (global not singular volcanism thats a different story completely).

Not wanting the dino debate either. Just looking back to see if what happened in the past is responsible for today. Was also going to point out the uncountable different chemical possibilities which could be contained within a meteor/comet/asteroid.

Um... actually, when dealing with Scientific theories, there isn't. Gravity is a theory. So is evolution. In science, a theory is an explanation/idea that is well-supported by solid evidence and has not been refuted. All theories are open to refutation if counter-evidence can be found that stands up to intensive scrutiny.

Umm well see that's not correct either. Gravity doesn't work at the extremes evolution contains many missing links. Both cases keep the theories, theories and not law.

Scientific law is almost proof however, even with laws there is the open caveat that we could find something tomorrow that would change everything.

The two theories you mentioned above are very good theories that I and millions of others of people hold great stock in. However they don't prove anything.

Not wanting the dino debate either. Just looking back to see if what happened in the past is responsible for today. Was also going to point out the uncountable different chemical possibilities which could be contained within a meteor/comet/asteroid.

Fine but how do you account for the d18O record that I showed earlier. Thats only one record but the largely all show the same thing. The impact does not seem to alter climate on long time scales therefore it cannot create an ice age.

Umm well see that's not correct either. Gravity doesn't work at the extremes evolution contains many missing links. Both cases keep the theories, theories and not law.

Scientific law is almost proof however, even with laws there is the open caveat that we could find something tomorrow that would change everything.

The two theories you mentioned above are very good theories that I and millions of others of people hold great stock in. However they don't prove anything.

"The Extremes"? That's a bit vague, not quite sure what the hell you mean by that.

It is not necessary to chart the biological history of every single species on earth for evolution to hold up. And don't try saying "there aren't any transitional fossils," either. Because there are quite a lot, and have been for some time.

There is no 100% proof in science. Nothing is truly certain, ever. The best that can be done is a theory, though theories that hold up over very long periods of time often come to be called "laws."

"The Extremes"? That's a bit vague, not quite sure what the hell you mean by that.

It is not necessary to chart the biological history of every single species on earth for evolution to hold up. And don't try saying "there aren't any transitional fossils," either. Because there are quite a lot, and have been for some time.

There is no 100% proof in science. Nothing is truly certain, ever. The best that can be done is a theory, though theories that hold up over very long periods of time often come to be called "laws."

extremes like really small things or things that are really far away...
I really hate to post these types of links but I am not a physicist. If someone on here has a better source for me to read I would love to see it.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html

Dude, I am not saying evolution doesn't exist. I am saying that its a theory and not proof. It doesn't become proof until you have uncovered ever source within the complete record and everthing works. This means you have correctly answered every "what if" question that everyone has ever thought of and everything that everyone could come up with based on the data at hand. Even then I might argue that its not proof (in this particular case) because morphologies and look similar from one species to the next therefore you can never know for certain that you have a new species... it might be an old species on a bad hair day.

Look you said it yourself.
there is no 100% proof in science. Ha great. The best thing that can be done is a well reasoned well supported theory that stands up to the course of time. Those things turn into laws. What a law again? Its a theory thats been around and tested (therefore does a good job of describing something physical that can be tested). What makes a theory a good theory? A good theory is an idea that 1) can be tested and 2) when tested its not DISproved.

But I am 100% correct that theories DO NOT equal proof. It goes against the scientific method which you should have learned in 7th grade (if you are in the USA). Don't take my word for it. Here is the top of the google page when I type in theory and proof.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/proof.html

But I am 100% correct that theories DO NOT equal proof. It goes against the scientific method which you should have learned in 7th grade (if you are in the USA). Don't take my word for it. Here is the top of the google page when I type in theory and proof.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/proof.html

Proof is just evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. Science doesn't deal in 'truths,' that would be philosophy and colloquialism. Nevertheless you'd have to be something of a moron to say that hey, there's no PROOF that E=mc^2, so maybe this nuclear bomb won't actually detonate.

Proof is just evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. Science doesn't deal in 'truths,' that would be philosophy and colloquialism. Nevertheless you'd have to be something of a moron to say that hey, there's no PROOF that E=mc^2, so maybe this nuclear bomb won't actually detonate.

That pretty much sums it up dosn't it? When you can't be 100% you have to go with the best odds. Especially when it comes to global warming. (seeing as how the things that are needed have already been invented like solar cells, electric cars, windmills, etc...)

That pretty much sums it up dosn't it? When you can't be 100% you have to go with the best odds. Especially when it comes to global warming. (seeing as how the things that are needed have already been invented like solar cells, electric cars, windmills, etc...)

I think the more important bit is that only one side can really afford to be wrong...

Green propaganda: If climate change turns out to be non-anthropogenic then the worst case scenario would be relative independence from fossil fuels and lesser air pollution (though, eg CFLs release more mercury in the environment than normal bulbs).

Conservative propaganda: If climate change is primarily anthropogenic and turns out to be true then we're knee deep in shit.