Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling
Hi Erik, I read the article you had linked to. The article is NOT promoting the idea that humans contribute an insignificant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is debunking the myth that humans are contributing too little CO2 into the atmosphere. What it actually states, in a nutshell, is that although the total output of human CO2 is insignificant compared to natural sources of CO2, it is stating that the amount produced by humans is has tipped the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere. The natural carbon sinks ie, the oceans, limestone etc, are over saturated, and cannot hold the amount of extra CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere. Again... one must really read and understand what is being represented. But thanks for the article. Jon
It seems to me that we can not know how significant our contribution to global worming is with out knowing the average cycle of worming /cooling has been over the ages. I believe we have not collected enough data in that area to establish a baseline. We have been measuring climate changes form the 1800s. Scientist have looked at ice layers and tree rings and geological layers to determine historic trends in worming and cooling. But I have not seen, and maybe I missed it, anywhere an accurate chart of the normal cycles through out the ages. What thy have collected has holes in it. If we don’t know the normal cycles and how far we are currently form it then we don’t know how much we have contributed to the normal cycle. No one has subtracted out the noise. The tendency, from what I have seen, is that some like to blame the whole mess on the last 200 years. Not a correct picture. Jim --- On Wed, 3/4/09, stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> wrote: From: stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 5:52 AM Hi Erik, I read the article you had linked to. The article is NOT promoting the idea that humans contribute an insignificant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is debunking the myth that humans are contributing too little CO2 into the atmosphere. What it actually states, in a nutshell, is that although the total output of human CO2 is insignificant compared to natural sources of CO2, it is stating that the amount produced by humans is has tipped the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere. The natural carbon sinks ie, the oceans, limestone etc, are over saturated, and cannot hold the amount of extra CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere. Again... one must really read and understand what is being represented. But thanks for the article. Jon _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Jim,
It seems that the undeniable point is that C02 levels have grown greatly since the industrial revolution and all other sources of CO2 emissions are hidden by human burning of fossil fuels. IE: No spikes in atmospheric CO2 have been noticed from eruptions of volcanos of forest fires. It also seems clear that scientist agree that CO2 levels are currently at their highest for thousands of years. Radio Isotopes have shown these levels to be from the burning of fossil fuels. The main point I hear from debunkers is that human activity does not produce significant CO2. This is clearly not supported by the data being collected from the atmosphere and not ice cores. It is grade school science that increased greenhouse gases will increase global temperatures. People visiting the polar regions are saying how amazed they are at how fast the ice is melting. After that I agree it is sketchy. Tree rings indicate growth which is affected by many things, using it to determine sun spot activity seems problematic. What the natural cycle has been seems merely academic in that man seems to be changing that natural cycle as he has changed the general ecosystem. IE: Seems the natural cycle has become moot. Most sources I have read call it battle between science and economists (wanting to maintain the status quo) Erik It seems to me that we can not know how significant our contribution to
global worming is with out knowing the average cycle of worming /cooling has been over the ages. I believe we have not collected enough data in that area to establish a baseline. We have been measuring climate changes form the 1800s. Scientist have looked at ice layers and tree rings and geological layers to determine historic trends in worming and cooling. But I have not seen, and maybe I missed it, anywhere an accurate chart of the normal cycles through out the ages. What thy have collected has holes in it. If we donât know the normal cycles and how far we are currently form it then we donât know how much we have contributed to the normal cycle. No one has subtracted out the noise.  The tendency, from what I have seen, is that some like to blame the whole mess on the last 200 years. Not a correct picture.  Jim
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> wrote:
From: stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 5:52 AM
Hi Erik, I read the article you had linked to. The article is NOT promoting the idea that humans contribute an insignificant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is debunking the myth that humans are contributing too little CO2 into the atmosphere. What it actually states, in a nutshell, is that although the total output of human CO2 is insignificant compared to natural sources of CO2, it is stating that the amount produced by humans is has tipped the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere. The natural carbon sinks ie, the oceans, limestone etc, are over saturated, and cannot hold the amount of extra CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere. Again... one must really read and understand what is being represented. But thanks for the article.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Eric, There is no question that man's use of fossil fuel has added CO2 to the atmosphere. There is also no doubt that volcanism contributes significant CO2 in the atmosphere and is proportionally greater than that of man's contribution. Also, the CO2 levels since man has been keeping records has been increasing since the inception of the industrial revolution. As far as ice cores, they also support the fact that Pleistocene atmosphere was lower in CO2 than at present levels. This is only one piece to the puzzel. Lets take for example the Mesozoic period where the data suggests that atmospheric CO2 was significantly higher than what it is today. It is also a period when the climate was much different than it is today. In this environment, plants on Earth flourished. It was also a period of aggresive tectonics and very active volcanic activity. The bottom line is, all the data available can not prove one way or the other what is the real driving factor in climate change. It is undoubtably a combination of many factors including atmospheric greenhouse gasses, sun spots, oceanic currents (changes in the C02 conveyor belt), plate techtonics and even Earths orbital characteristics. We need to be open minded with all our investigations in this problem but suggesting that if mankind completely stops burning fossil fuels will make a significant difference is probably short sighted. Rodger Fry ----- Original Message ----- From: <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling
Jim,
It seems that the undeniable point is that C02 levels have grown greatly since the industrial revolution and all other sources of CO2 emissions are hidden by human burning of fossil fuels. IE: No spikes in atmospheric CO2 have been noticed from eruptions of volcanos of forest fires. It also seems clear that scientist agree that CO2 levels are currently at their highest for thousands of years. Radio Isotopes have shown these levels to be from the burning of fossil fuels. The main point I hear from debunkers is that human activity does not produce significant CO2. This is clearly not supported by the data being collected from the atmosphere and not ice cores. It is grade school science that increased greenhouse gases will increase global temperatures. People visiting the polar regions are saying how amazed they are at how fast the ice is melting. After that I agree it is sketchy. Tree rings indicate growth which is affected by many things, using it to determine sun spot activity seems problematic. What the natural cycle has been seems merely academic in that man seems to be changing that natural cycle as he has changed the general ecosystem. IE: Seems the natural cycle has become moot. Most sources I have read call it battle between science and economists (wanting to maintain the status quo) Erik It seems to me that we can not know how significant our contribution to
global worming is with out knowing the average cycle of worming /cooling has been over the ages.à I believe we have not collected enough data in that area to establish a baseline.à We have been measuring climate changes form the 1800s.à Scientist have looked at ice layers and tree rings and geological layers to determine historic trends in worming and cooling. But I have not seen, and maybe I missed it, anywhere an accurate chart of the normal cycles through out the ages. What thy have collected has holes in it. If we donâ?Tt know the normal cycles and how far we are currently form it then we donâ?Tt know how much we have contributed to the normal cycle. No one has subtracted out the noise. à The tendency, from what I have seen, is that some like to blame the whole mess on the last 200 years. Not a correct picture. à Jim
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> wrote:
From: stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 5:52 AM
Hi Erik, I read the article you had linked to. The article is NOT promoting the idea that humans contribute an insignificant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is debunking the myth that humans are contributing too little CO2 into the atmosphere. What it actually states, in a nutshell, is that although the total output of human CO2 is insignificant compared to natural sources of CO2, it is stating that the amount produced by humans is has tipped the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere. The natural carbon sinks ie, the oceans, limestone etc, are over saturated, and cannot hold the amount of extra CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere. Again... one must really read and understand what is being represented. But thanks for the article.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Rodger,
You say you have no doubt that volcanism contributes proportionally more CO2 than humans. Please direct me to the source that makes you so certain of that. Climate scientist do not dispute that CO2 levels have been higher before. We are only partially done burning fossil fuels, CO2 will continue to rise. It would be impossible to stop burning and a lot of time will be required to develop energy sources. We should start now. I heard a Saudi Sheik say he felt it a waste to use oil and gas to produce electricity. According to our EPA electricity production cause the most CO2 emission. Plant life will likely do OK, that may not mean human crops will, however. Erik Eric, There is no question that man's use of fossil fuel has added CO2 to
the atmosphere. There is also no doubt that volcanism contributes significant CO2 in the atmosphere and is proportionally greater than that of man's contribution.
Also, the CO2 levels since man has been keeping records has been increasing since the inception of the industrial revolution.
As far as ice cores, they also support the fact that Pleistocene atmosphere was lower in CO2 than at present levels. This is only one piece to the puzzel.
Lets take for example the Mesozoic period where the data suggests that atmospheric CO2 was significantly higher than what it is today. It is also a period when the climate was much different than it is today. In this environment, plants on Earth flourished. It was also a period of aggresive tectonics and very active volcanic activity.
The bottom line is, all the data available can not prove one way or the other what is the real driving factor in climate change. It is undoubtably a combination of many factors including atmospheric greenhouse gasses, sun spots, oceanic currents (changes in the C02 conveyor belt), plate techtonics and even Earths orbital characteristics.
We need to be open minded with all our investigations in this problem but suggesting that if mankind completely stops burning fossil fuels will make a significant difference is probably short sighted.
Rodger Fry ----- Original Message ----- From: <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling
Jim,
It seems that the undeniable point is that C02 levels have grown greatly since the industrial revolution and all other sources of CO2 emissions are hidden by human burning of fossil fuels. IE: No spikes in atmospheric CO2 have been noticed from eruptions of volcanos of forest fires. It also seems clear that scientist agree that CO2 levels are currently at their highest for thousands of years. Radio Isotopes have shown these levels to be from the burning of fossil fuels.
The main point I hear from debunkers is that human activity does not produce significant CO2. This is clearly not supported by the data being collected from the atmosphere and not ice cores.
It is grade school science that increased greenhouse gases will increase global temperatures. People visiting the polar regions are saying how amazed they are at how fast the ice is melting.
After that I agree it is sketchy. Tree rings indicate growth which is affected by many things, using it to determine sun spot activity seems problematic. What the natural cycle has been seems merely academic in that man seems to be changing that natural cycle as he has changed the general ecosystem. IE: Seems the natural cycle has become moot.
Most sources I have read call it battle between science and economists (wanting to maintain the status quo)
Erik
It seems to me that we can not know how significant our contribution to
global worming is with out knowing the average cycle of worming /cooling has been over the ages. I believe we have not collected enough data in that area to establish a baseline. We have been measuring climate changes form the 1800s. Scientist have looked at ice layers and tree rings and geological layers to determine historic trends in worming and cooling. But I have not seen, and maybe I missed it, anywhere an accurate chart of the normal cycles through out the ages. What thy have collected has holes in it. If we donâ?Tt know the normal cycles and how far we are currently form it then we donâ?Tt know how much we have contributed to the normal cycle. No one has subtracted out the noise.  The tendency, from what I have seen, is that some like to blame the whole mess on the last 200 years. Not a correct picture.  Jim --- On Wed, 3/4/09, stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> wrote: From: stormcrow60@xmission.com <stormcrow60@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Cooling To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 5:52 AM Hi Erik, I read the article you had linked to. The article is NOT promoting the idea that humans contribute an insignificant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is debunking the myth that humans are contributing too little CO2 into the atmosphere. What it actually states, in a nutshell, is that although the total output of human CO2 is insignificant compared to natural sources of CO2, it is stating that the amount produced by humans is has tipped the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere. The natural carbon sinks ie, the oceans, limestone etc, are over saturated, and cannot hold the amount of extra CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere. Again... one must really read and understand what is being represented. But thanks for the article. Jon _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (4)
-
erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net -
Jim Gibson -
Rodger C. Fry -
stormcrow60＠xmission.com