Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only way the Earth's climate would remain static is if it had no atmosphere at all.
And there's your trade-off: You can choose from between Option A and Option B.
A) If you want an atmosphere (and who doesn't? ), then you will have climate change. Period.
B) If you want zero climate change, get rid of your atmosphere.
For about 800,000 years there were cyclical ice ages. From analysis of frozen bubbles in ice cores one can prove that there were relatively lengthy ice ages followed by relatively rapid thawing, in which CO2 emitted by warming caused a positive feedback effect to increase the warming more rapidly. The general idea was first figured out by Milutin Milancovic, who realized that various long term cycles in the earth's orbit, especially the 41,000 year axial tilt cycle, would start a rapid warming by melting northern latitude ice, and reducing the sun's reflection from both glaciated ice and sea ice. But strictly because of the burning of fossil fuels by humans there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime during these recurring ice ages. (See the Vostoc ice core records on Temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the past 400 000 years | GRID-Arendal - Maps & Graphics library) Note that the present CO2 concentration is 400 ppm, well above the highest concentrations obtained during the ice age cycles shown for the past 400,000 years on the Vostoc ice core records on that website.
Non controversial physics such as the second law of thermodynamics, the quantum mechanics of molecular infra red absorption, and Shwarzchild's equations show that this marked increase of CO2 will increase the earth's temperature beyond what it would attain without human's mucking around with the climate. It is projected that ice melting trends indicate ice-free summer sea ice before 2100. But "one picture is worth 1000 words" so please look at the animation of the Arctic sea ice between 1982 and 2016.
but strictly because of the burning of fossil fuels by humans there is now more co2 in the atmosphere than at anytime during these recurring ice ages. (see the vostoc ice core records on temperature and co2 concentration in the atmosphere over the past 400 000 years | grid-arendal - maps & graphics library) note that the present co2 concentration is 400 ppm, well above the highest concentrations obtained during the ice age cycles shown for the past 400,000 years on the vostoc ice core records on that website.
400,000 years is a long time only in relation to a human lifespan; in terms of the age of the Earth itself (4.5 billion years, +/-), it is but a mere blink of the geological eye. And over the last 4.5 billion years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied considerably. As you can see from the attached chart, during most of geologic history dating back to the beginning of the Cambrian Period, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been many multiples of what they are today, generally with little correlation to ambient average atmospheric temperatures. (Blue line is temperature in degrees C; the purple line is the atmospheric CO2 concentration.)
Assorted notes on the graph:
1) Current atmospheric CO2 at 400 ppm is a relatively low level; before the Pleistocene Epoch, the last time CO2 concentrations were this low was during the late Carboniferous Period. In fact, so low is the current level of CO2 concentration that, in comparison to the remainder of the Earth's long history, today's atmosphere can be accurately said to be "CO2 impoverished." The low CO2 concentrations continued through the end of the Permian and well into the Triassic Period (210 ppm), yet atmospheric temperatures were relatively high.
2) At the end of the Jurassic Period and well into the Cretaceous Period, CO2 concentrations rose precipitously (to 340 ppm). Unfortunately for "settled climate science," however, temperatures dropped just as precipitously, thereby falsifying (and invalidating) the CO2/temperature hypothesis. A similar divergence is seen in the late Silurian/early Devonian, and at the end of the Devonian as well.
3) The death blow to the CO2/temperature hypothesis actually came earlier in Earth's history, of course, around 440 million years ago. You'll notice CO2 at around 2240 ppm (other estimates are as high as 7000 ppm, later falling to around 4000 ppm) in the late Ordovician, continuing at a similar level into the Silurian, when atmospheric CO2 began its decline. However, despite atmospheric CO2 concentrations being 5 to 10 times today's levels during that period, the end of the Ordovician was actually marked by a period of cooling and glaciation (i.e., an "ice age," lasting perhaps 1-2 million years) that precipitated the second of the five great mass extinction events in the Earth's history.
So, as we can see, contrary to the dogma presented by the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Adjustment (aka "CACA") priesthood, there is nothing particularly significant about this arbitrary level of 400 ppm atmospheric CO2. While CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been far higher in the distant past, they have seldom been as low as they are today. There is nothing especially dangerous (or even noteworthy) about the current CO2 levels.
The second graph shows the average Earth temperature from 1850 to 2013. You'll note that despite an increase in CO2 concentrations from about 350 to 400 ppm during that period, the average temperature remains the same at 287 Kelvin. If we needed any more proof that the CO2/temperature hypothesis is invalid (and we don't), this would be it.
1. Actually, if one looks much further into the past than ice ages, modern work indicates most temperature changes in earth's temperature are controlled by CO2. There is nothing as accurate as an ice core for a CO2 proxy but people can use markers such as the stomata on leaves and the ratio of heavier carbon 13 CO2 isotopologue to the major CO2 isotopologue based on carbon 12. An excellent lecture is given by Richard Alley on this topic. Go to A23A to see this. One example: the Paleocene - Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) in which a rise in CO2 is sharp and agrees with the timing of a sharp rise in temperature. See the discussion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoc...global_warming
2. If one goes to Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots and look at a graph of earth temperature from 1880 to 2016 one sees that there is a systematic increase with time right up to the present and the temperature now is the highest on that plot. The most common technique used by the deniers of anthropogenic global warming is cherrypicking data.
1. Actually, if one looks much further into the past than ice ages, modern work indicates most temperature changes in earth's temperature are controlled by CO2. There is nothing as accurate as an ice core for a CO2 proxy but people can use markers such as the stomata on leaves and the ratio of heavier carbon 13 CO2 isotopologue to the major CO2 isotopologue based on carbon 12. An excellent lecture is given by Richard Alley on this topic. One can go to the website A23A to see this. One example: the Paleocene - Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) in which a rise in CO2 is sharp and agrees with the timing of a sharp rise in temperature. See the discussion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoc...global_warming
2. If one goes to Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots and look at a graph of earth temperature from 1880 to 2016 one sees that there is a systematic increase with time right up to the present and the temperature now is the highest on that plot. The most common technique used by the deniers of anthropogenic global warming is cherrypicking data.
Those are the NOAA's cooked temperature records, which are not trustworthy at all. If you want to see some reliable temperature data, which I suspect that you don't, then the satellite temperature data is what you will want to use.
Perhaps you refer to the University of Alabama Huntsville satellite data? One of the operators of that satellite is Roy Spencer, a member of the "Cornwall Alliance", along with Richard Lindzen. The statement of belief of this group is as follows:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming."
In other words, God in his Intelligent Design, made the earth to have a really low climate sensitivity!!!
If you start with this kind of assumption your science is suspect at the outset. Kind of folks who would like to make everyone teach Creation Science in high school.
It's always a coincidence how liberals just authoritatively claim that anything they participate in doesn't lead to climate change, but anything they dislike does. So odd!
Which goes right back to their belief that taxes will fix the problem. They claim they belief in science and then refuse to utilize it.
Which goes right back to their belief that taxes will fix the problem.
Why not? High tobacco taxes have worked very well to help curb cigarette use, dropping from about 45% of the population in the 1960's to about 14% today. In the same way a carbon tax can help break America's addiction to fossil fuels -- and it doesn't have to grow the government, other taxes can be lowered to make carbon taxes revenue neutral.
In many areas of the country cigarette use is not socially popular. People have accepted the well-grounded science that cigarettes cause premature death due to cancer or cardiovascular disease. Climate change is on the same path of acceptance by the public. A recent poll in Florida found that 66% of respondents agreed that global warming is a serious problem right here, right now. Floridians see the effects firsthand as seawater inundates Miami streets on sunny days, convincing those on the fence.
Other polls also show the climate change acceptance is gaining ground with the public. As the effects of global warming ramp up and become more obvious, climate denialism will fade in popularity and become a fringe movement. Who knows, in several years deniers might be forced to go stand outside alongside the smokers :-)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), then you will have climate change. Period.
Reply to Milton Miteybad
