A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

Global Warming Is Nothing New

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)

This article has moved to ScienceBlogs

It has also been updated and this page is still here only to preserve the original comment thread. Please visit A Few Things Ill Considered there. You may also like to view Painting With Water, Coby Beck's original fine art photography.



  • At March 27, 2006 3:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  • At March 28, 2006 11:15 AM, Blogger coby said…

    The above comment has been deleted because it is excessively long, mostly off topic, not very coherent and not at all useful for discussion or educational purposes.

    Peter, if you can contribute something more concise, and where possible substantiated, you are welcome to do so. Alternatively you may post a short description and a link to your writings on another site.

  • At March 28, 2006 8:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What will happen at the opposite cyclic 'end' (the peak) of the irregularly periodic glaciations this Planet will produce? Within the current Period of the Long Term Climate Oscillation (being within the 'trought' of that oscillation), this is quite unknown, but that IS where 'Climate' is placed NOW.

    Please refer to http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348

    and refer to slide labeled "Four Geological Times of Glaciations",
    with realisation that the 'blocks' seen in that 'chart' represent periods of time when glaciations reoccurred on a planetary scale, some being 'Ice Ages".

    The labeled points in that chart are, from right to left, 1 billion years AGO, 500 million years AGO, AND 'Today' (as part of the last '2 Million' years).

    For the past 2 MILLION years, Ice has moved back and forth, melting then extending again. Perhaps 'ice is melting' a 'bit faster', but there is nothing more to be validly mentioned in regard to such observations.

    Realise also that the transition into this present 'period' was sufficiently turbulent to bring forth a new species into dominance, that species being now seen as 'modern Humanity'.

    HOWEVER, as I have mentioned, there is little KNOWN about the opposing climate condition TO those Periods of recurring glaciation (that often contain an "Ice Age", commonly considered a Glaciation of a majority of the Planet's surface).

    It IS thought that these warm periods at the PEAK of the oscillation will be TURBULENT with altering STRONG weather patterning.

    This IS what is being experienced NOW, as this is NOW that such a PEAK seems to be upon the NATURAL CLIMATE oscillation.

    It is NOT that seeing some ICE melting NOW means that ICE will NOT reform later. Water will FREEZE when it is 'cold enough' again. It is NOT even thought that all the ICE will melt.

    Even if ALL the OCEAN ICE around the POLAR REGIONS does 'melt', the newly warmed sub-artic regions, verdant with streams and rivers, will take up much of the release to increase the proportion of FRESH LIQUID water available on a now EXTENDED verdant land surface.

    So the ~3% of total Planetary water that is 'fresh' will see the alterations that there could be ~2% as LIQUID and ~1% as 'trapped' (including remaining Snow and Ice).

    Sea levels will NOT need to be expected to RISE DRAMATICALLY as not ALL the 'melt' will remain IN the oceans, and we ARE only speaking of less than ~2% of ALL water available to being with being 'involved'.

    What we are observing AND measuring is a 'peak' of 'climate' rebalancing of RELATIVE volumes of fresh water from its SOLID PHASE to its Liquid and "Gaseous" PHASE.

    The present warming phase is now around 15000 years old in its obvious effects, perhaps 20000 in overall duration, and is leading back, as might a 'tidal effect', running back from the equator returning to the Polar Regions, which are NOW showing the effects in an observable manner.

    Indeed, 'global warming' IS 'nothing new'.

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

  • At March 29, 2006 1:21 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Peter, the current climate change is much more rapid than any of the changes in geologic history, both the real ones and the ones you are very stragely describing. Why should anyone care where the climate is heading over the next million years while we are threatened by a devastating change similar to the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum? We must deal with clear and present dangers first, then you can make the million year plans if you want.

    As for the glaciation cycles of the current ice age, please see here. We have stil l about 30 or 40K years before the next glaciation absent anthropogenic disturbances. (Notice how I substantiated what I wrote).

    As for your predictions of what melting ice caps will leave behind, I think you need to do some research. These ice sheets are not sitting on top of "verdant" green farmlands, they sit on bedrock. Topsoil takes thousands of years to develop after ice retreats.

    Global Warming in the most general sense is indeed nothing new. The current warming however is quite remarkable in its rapidity and the CO2 pulse we are injecting into the air is 30x faster than any know such event. It has already taken us higher than ever in at least a million years and going higher and this pulse will persist for a thousand years not considering possible feedbacks.

    That is new.

  • At March 31, 2006 12:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Coby, there is no regular periodicity in climate. If one observes the passage of Climate into those Periods where recurring glaciations are present; it is obvious this is the situation.
    (See slide of Glaciation Periods in http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348 ) (*)

    There is nothing to cite that climate change is being unnaturally altered Coby. The issue at 'fault' within your inferences is that you are mixing weather patterning alterations with the expected alterations of overall climate within the present Period.

    The weather patterning is being unnaturally affected by Humanities alterations to the surface which are inducing a redistribution of kinetic energy induction both in rate and in region. This is shifting the observations of weather patterning and the resultant effects of such alterations to Turbulence, rainfall etc.

    This is creating floods as rain fall moves away from 'traditional' water courses, as well as drought from the more obvious lack of rain. Here in Australia, the 'plains' river systems have 'ghost courses' to either side of the present water courses showing the variation of the 'rain heads' of such systems and alluding to the situation of the present being 'within of a set' of previous extremes.

    There is nothing to link the last ~3 million years to any period outside that. The previous period of known recurring glaciations ended around 250 million years ago. The period between was a period where oscillation of Climate was observed as variation of (much higher) sea levels rather than recurring glaciation events, for well over 200 Million years until the last ~3 Million.

    The alteration to weather patterning is produced by the redistribution of both rate and region of surface kinetic energy induction. The charts I mention below show that the ocean temperature rise is following, in a delayed and muted manner, the trend of the land surface in the so far small increase in median temperatures, with an obvious trend linked to Human Population.

    See (*) for slides.
    ‘Comparison of median surface temperature and Human Population growth.’
    'A global median surface temperatures'

    The muting of effect is due to the ability of the liquid contained in the ocean to display turbulence. The atmosphere, being a gas, more readily displays alteration to turbulence, which is the reason humanity is observing the alteration to weather patterning that is leading to droughts and floods with attached events of ‘mudslides’ and ‘storms’ showing alteration to ‘strength’, ‘timing’ and/or ‘locations’.

    See http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html (**)

    From which I extract:-

    [“Ice and glaciers come and go there are many long-term weather patterns that the Earth goes through. The climate, on a global scale, is always changing, although usually not at a rate fast enough for people to notice. There have been many warm periods, such as when the dinosaurs lived and many cold periods, such as the last ice age of about 20,000 years ago. During the last ice age much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice and glaciers, and, as this map from the University of Arizona shows, they covered nearly all of Canada, much of northern Asia and Europe, and extended well into the United States.”]

    , and notice the image:- wciceiceage.jpg being a chart relating “In the last ‘Ice Age’ glaciers, ice & snow covered nearly all of Canada, much of Northern Asia and Europe, and extended into the USA.” (University of Arizona)

    Beneath the line of glaciation on the image would be a region of persistent cold and it is known that cold weather flora and fauna inhabited this region, especially in what is now the USA.

    I say this and provide the image to add to the realisation that what Humanity is observing is NOT due to ‘greenhouse’ (the effect is still not described in a valid manner and even the materials involved do not present ‘greenhouse behavior’ let alone produce a ‘greenhouse effect’) but is the end play to the same (now ~20000 to ~15000 year old) warming cycle.

    That it is NOW that effects are again very obvious is ALL that makes NOW unique. The alterations to weather patterning however IS a process that Humanity does indeed have ‘a hand in’ producing by surface alterations, NOT by or within ‘greenhouse’ concepts (which simply cannot exists in actuality, see http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348 for more detail).

    The encroachment of increases in desert terrain around the fringes of the equatorial region is expected to show increases as the warming process reaches its ‘peak’, before the ‘turn’ back to a ‘glaciation dip’. But the realisation needs to be made that ‘duration’ of the ‘stay’ in this ‘Peak’ warmth could be as persistent as the ‘stay’ in the last ‘Ice Age’ within the ‘Dip’ just risen from within this (Secondary) cycle.

    Humanity ‘rose’ from the onset of this current period of recurring glaciations ~ 3 Million years ago, and from the above site (**):-

    [“During the last warm spell, 125,000 years ago, the seas were about 18 feet higher than they are today. About three million years ago the seas could have been up to 165 feet higher.”]

    , and notice that before ~3 Million years ago there was a long period (see chart in files section) of a “Primary Crest” with no recurring glaciations and seemingly large variation in (much higher) sea levels.

    It seems Humanity has ‘come down’ from the trees to now need to live shaded by the surface for a time, that would at least be the more sensible thing, in line with our forebears realising that the trees would not transport them away from the approaching ‘cold’.

    There are NO 'clear and present dangers' needing to be 'dealt with' Coby, especially such needing notice of a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. That is the factual view of the present situation. There are reasons to rethink how Humanity treats the surface and the presently still retained photosynthetic mass covered regions.

    You need to realise Coby that the materials present to not present even 'greenhouse behavior' and certainly do not produce a supposed 'greenhouse effect', see the links:-

    There is also that numerous other sources exist, you can look at for more information, and notice the slide of atmospheric absorbance breakdown in the articles I link to (*).

    You must have failed to notice Coby that in those articles I link to (* & 312) I do mention that ONE 'oscillator' is a TRIVARIATE of planetary orbital variation, planetary axial precession and Solar Climate as concerned with TOTAL, and Spectral division of, Solar energy output. This TRIVARIATE is just one of the LONG TERM PRIMARY oscillators of CLIMATE Coby.

    If analytical method is still not well realised and understood, you might find the material at the link:-
    more than instructive.

    You have NOT as yet 'substantiated' your opinions Coby, let alone 'validated' them. Realise Coby that in the last 'Ice Age' vast amounts of TOP SOIL was only covered by SNOW.

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

  • At April 04, 2006 3:59 AM, Blogger Wag the Dog said…

    Man, either hartlod is some sort of nut job or his CAPS lock key IS seriously BROKEN. And, hartlod, what's with calling the blog owners name in every phrase, hartlod?

    To the reader (or skeptic). This is a good example of how to completely mess up what might have been a constructive scientific argument. With all that emphatic speak and emotionally weighting polluting whatever rational statements are left, he comes across sounding more like a religious evangelist or a door to door salesman than a serious scientific discussion. Great if you're into spreading your truthiness. Not so great on spreading truth.

  • At April 05, 2006 5:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well 'wag the dog'; if I address a point made by Coby, I will address it with such a name as Coby.

    When addressing 'wag the dog' i shall use that label, and point out the irrelevance of your posted opinion 'wag the dog', as all you are doing 'wag the dog' is showing ["..a good example of how to completely mess up.." a ["..constructive scientific argument.."].

    As I have pointed out I post in plain text and use CAPS for emphasis as one might use BOLD or ITALICS otherwise, not to display 'emotion'.

    Perhaps you might consider the points i raise, rather than posture from behind an anonymous identity? There is nothing 'evangelical' or religious in what I mention in either substance or style, 'wag the dog' you simply seem not to recognise SCIENCE.

    Point out the 'religious connection' contained in the links:-
    , for all please 'wag the dog'.

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

  • At June 06, 2006 9:07 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  • At June 06, 2006 9:54 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  • At February 20, 2007 5:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Global Warming has been going on for 20,000 years.


    Now watch the magician Coby Beck deny the Ice Age never existed. Wave you wand Coby Beck and make it dissapear.



  • At February 25, 2007 8:51 PM, Blogger boo2u said…

    Google friends of science for a good explanation of global warming.I shoud caution this site is not for anyone on any kind of drug

  • At April 11, 2007 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    omg people really need to do something bout global warming it has been going on for years and people say they cant do anything bout it when they can
    get it straight people


  • At December 27, 2007 11:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ok people. Let's get it straight. The world is producing more poisonous gasses into the atmosphere, and whether it is causing this effect of "global warming" or not, it has to be reduced. We will see the effects whether it is going to be the melting of glaciers or acid rain or whatever. Well I think that is a sign for "us" to take responsibility in our actions of the production of energy. Of course our sources of energy are going to change, but it takes time. Making an abrupt change is not going to stop an "global warming" that has already started, but it will cause chaos in society. The "new ways" of energy will be expensive, and the poorer of society will not be able to afford this source. For instance, how is changing all our oil dependency to ethanol made from corn going to solve our crisis. Get real, it will cause mor hunger in our population and will push out farmers of other farmers who farm different crops, and we have already seen the effects f ethanol. It has caused an increase on the price of corn, which has caused an increas on the price of feed for cattle and causes a rise in the price of dairy products. We still need to rely on our most efficient sources of energy while still being responsible for what we spit out in the air that we are breathing. I know I may have went out on a tangent somewhat, but I was just trying to reach to both ends of the spectrum on this global warming arguement. I think that there needs to be a balance on being responsiblity and on our decisions we are to make everyday. Instead of throwing that popcan out the window, recycle it. Or instead of using incadescent lightbulbs try a CFL which last ten years and is 80% more efficient. Again think before you act and the world will be a better place.

  • At March 02, 2008 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I don't know what to believe anymore! An Inconvenient Truth and The Global Warming Swindle both hold very convincing evidence.
    One says CO2 is our problem, the other says no. One says glaciers are melting because of hte ice age, the other, not in accord.
    So what do we believe?

    I think that if global warming is just a hype, we can still take care of our environment. If we continue like we do, global warming can happen, and our studies today will become useful anyways.

    I guess we don't really need to worry about whether it's true or not. It all works out anyways

  • At March 02, 2008 10:55 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Don't get your science form Al Gore or poloitical hacks like the one who did Global Warming Swindle, get it from scientific agencies and peer reviewed papers. But for real scientist's opinions of both those movies, I recommend RealClimate.org. Search for both those films and see what NASA scientists and other leading climatologists have to say about them.

  • At July 11, 2008 11:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

Post a Comment

<< Home