Jerry:
"For example, Scientific American August 2007 has a plot for the last 10,000 years
CO2 level less than 280 PPM"

The antarctic ice cores aren't the only estimate of past co2 levels. There is also the Greenland cores. And then there is an entirely different method, which involves the study of the stomata (pores) on the modern and fossilised leaves of certain plant species. Dutch scientist Dr Van der Hoof found bigger swings in holocene co2 levels up to 360ppm which he says matched well with the Greenland cores, until the Greenland cores got re-calibrated to match the antarctic core results....

This was an arbitrary decision which was I believe influenced by the pressure scientific teams have been under to present a consistent narrative regarding climate change.

So, I'm sceptical about ice core results.

"Frankly, I would be far more worried about the looming water crises in India and China (and the W coast of America too)."

And large parts of Africa as well.

And also, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the potential negative effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on ocean Ph. Especially if the ocean begins to cool.

@Rog. You present a very interesting and, to this layman, plausible alternative hypothesis to that of the Warmista. Whether or not you are ultimately proven correct or incorrect, unlikely in our lifetimes, I thank you for the trouble you have gone to in laying it out here. More grist for the mill of the scientific method. It is unfortunate that you don't have more opportunities to debate this with your peers.

Edited to change theory to hypothesis.

Edited by ouzel on 06/02/2011 20:21:32 MDT.

"Jerry: Fair's fair. You need to answer my questions too"

I don't really have any opinion beyond CO2 levels were below 280 or maybe 290 for the last 10,000 years, 380 in the last couple decades, probably because of burning oil and coal, who knows what the effect will be

Maybe some areas will get warmer, some colder. Maybe more precipitation in some areas, less in others. Maybe more or larger storms. Maybe sea level will increase due to it warming the oceans or melting ice.

Maybe we have been in a warmer period and are going into a colder period, and CO2 levels and global warming will cancel out some of that natural cycle.

I've looked up some of your theories which are interesting.

How is it that we don't understand how the distance and angle of earth relative to sun has changed over time? I don't think anything except the earth, sun, and moon would effect this. Why is it such a simple system is so difficult to understand?

>> Roger C: Perhaps part of the problem may be that many people have simply looked at the last few hundred years and assumed they represent 'normal' for the planet.

That's the modern human thing to do: to frame the entire world around ourselves. We think we have dominion over the planet. We change the weather. We then fix the weather. Etc.

From what I've read, humans in pretty much their current form have been around much longer than the last 50,000 years or so. Hunting and gathering was the deal until the climate stabilized about 50,000 years ago. Then agriculture became possible which lead to civilization which led to machines/computers/networks.

"That's the modern human thing to do: to frame the entire world around ourselves."

Very true, and especially in the U.S. Too many people here think the world revolves around the U.S., which really irritates me, because, actually, the world revolves around ME! I just happen to live in the U.S..........

From wikipedia



In the last 400,000 years CO2 has varied between about 180 and 300 ppm

Then, in the last few decades, it's gone up to 380 ppm

Tom and George,
thank you both for your kind words of encouragement. There is much to learn, and an almost impossibly large number of scientific papers in the literature which need to be studied, but eventually I will write and publish if I can find a journal which will take my stuff. I have an invite from the New Scientist to write an article for them this year on my astronomical stuff too.

Jerry: If you're talking about the Milankovitch cycles and ice ages, it's a fun puzzle with just three variables. See if you can solve it. I'm still trying.

Night all, sleepy time for Brits.

"Too many people here think the world revolves around the U.S., which really irritates me, because, actually, the world revolves around ME! I just happen to live in the U.S.........."

Everybody knows the world revolves around the US, Doug. We just didn't know why. Now promise me one thing. PULEEZE, don't emigrate! It could have all sorts of unpredictable effects on the climate, and all the hard work Rog has put into his theory would go down the toilet, along with that of the accursed Warmista.

The power of the y axis.

: )

Jerry: you asked:
"How is it that we don't understand how the distance and angle of earth relative to sun has changed over time? I don't think anything except the earth, sun, and moon would effect this. Why is it such a simple system is so difficult to understand?"

In general, we do understand it, but the further back we try to compute it, the more the errors in our equations add up, and the computed end up out of sync with how it really was.

Why are there errors in our equations, and how do we know they are there?

Because solving the maths of the 'many body problem' is beyond our current power as mathematicians. Aaprt from the Earth, Sun and Moon, there is also an effect from (particularly) Jupiter and Venus on changes in Earth's orbital eccentricity. Earth's precessionary period is affected mainly by the Moon, but also by changes in the distribution of mass on Earth - both in terms of flows of heavy metal bearing molten material under the crust, and by changes in sea level as glaciation levels alter. The axial tilt of Earth is unpredictable for the same reason, and also will be affected electromagnetically by the strength of the solar wind.

Having said all that, we have done remarkably well in calculating the past changes in Earth's orbital parameters, as the paper by G Roe I linked for you demonstrates. The match he found between changes in the amount of sunshine arriving at 65 degrees latitude North and changes in ice volume going back over many hundreds of thousands of years gives a big clue as to what the dominant forces involved in the coming and going of glacial and interglacial periods are.

.

Here's the last 1/4 million years in detail. This one is is reconstructed temperature rather then rate of change of ice volume. There must be a clue here as to why the current interglacial is lasting so long. Precession position keeping NH winter warmer? Or is it the end of the Cenezoic ice ages and Earth will head back up to it's favoured ~22C average from the ~12.5C we are at now?

By the way Jerry, take careful note of the fact that the upswings in insolation values take place before or in line with the upswings in temperature on this graph, whereas it is well known that co2 values lag behind temperature change in the ice core reconstructions by 800-2000 years. Who's the daddy? :-)

.

For a nice easy reading article on how other space weather and orbital mechanics parameters may be affecting Earth's climate as the solar system tours the Milky Way have a look here:
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Cosmology-Climate-Connection-How-Extraterrestrial-Forces-Influence-The-Weather

Edited by tallbloke on 06/03/2011 02:49:44 MDT.

Tom Said:
"And,yeah, it would be a gas if the temperature remained the same until 2020 and we had to declare a tie. After all these endless pages of back and forth, it would be a terrible letdown for us battled hardened flame warriors"

Things are poised nicely for the wager between Dean and myself. What will happen over the next year? A second dip following La Nina as I am predicting? Or a return to the dizzy heights of global warming as Dean has been favouring? Or will the forum software explode when we reach 100 pages, losing the carbon flame war to posterity and letting Dean off the hook? Get some side bets going!

.

Note to moderators: Pretty please, back up the Carbon Flame War before we get to 100 pages!

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts

No Hurricanes here, it's a clear blue sky and warm. I'm heading to the mountains for a couple of days.

Play nice. :-)

Edited by tallbloke on 06/03/2011 03:43:36 MDT.

OK, a last quick post before I fire the bike up:

New Aussie survey shows results of latest opinion poll:
The key question:

Q9. Thinking about the causes of climate change, which, if any, of the following best describes your opinion?

Climate change is entirely caused by natural processes: 4.9%
Climate change is mainly caused by natural processes: 12.6%
Climate change is partly caused by natural processes and partly by human activity: 45.8%
Climate change is mainly caused by human activity: 27.6%
Climate change is entirely caused by human activity: 4.2%

Some sceptic orientated analysis here:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/


"Less than a third of the population think that climate change is mainly or entirely caused by human activity (31.8%)
Almost twice that number think that climate change is mainly or partly caused by natural processes (58.4%)
So in reality, the survey shows a healthy scepticism of the claim that human activity is predominantly to blame for climate change."

Spin comes from both sides in this debate. :-)
It looks to me like a large part of the Aussie population has a fairly balanced view, and probably aren't sufficiently fussed about looking into the science closely enough to feel it worth expressing a stronger view either way given the uncertainty. They're not going to take anyone's word as gospel anyway.


Link to the original survey:
http://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/Interim%20report%20-%20final%20document%20-18-04-2011-2_30pm(1).pdf

"Less than a third of the population think that climate change is mainly or entirely caused by human activity (31.8%)
Almost twice that number think that climate change is mainly or partly caused by natural processes (58.4%)"

You could also say:
Almost three quarters of the population think that climate change is mainly or partly caused by human activity (73.4%)
Less than a quarter of that number think that climate change is mainly or entirely caused by natural processes(17.5%)

As we debate the carbon flame war, we know we are riding on a planet that is spinning as it orbits through space around our sun. But how fast?

The Earth's circumference at the Equator is 40,000 kilometers (24,854 mi) and it takes 24 hours to complete one rotation. Therefore, the Earth's speed at the Equator is

D / T = 40,000 km / 24 hr = 1670 km/hr, or 24,854 mi / 24 hr = 1036 mph

Keep in mind that if you move north or south of the Equator, the east-west parallel of constant latitude narrows. In other words, the distance travelled in a day is less and, of course, the speed is less. You calculate the speed adjustment of rotation using the cosine of your latitude.

For example, at latitude 40 degrees north, you spin in 24 hours:

cos(40) * 1670 km/hr is 1280 km/hr

cos(40) * 1036 mph is 794 mph

So unless you are a penguin, you're spinning rather briskly

Our orbital speed is even faster,

Radius of the Earth's Orbit is 1 AU or 150,000,000 km (93,205,678 mi)

Circumference of this orbit is 2 * pi * R or 942,000,000 km, or 585,628,547 mi

It takes 365.2422 days, or 8766 hr

D / T = 942,000,000 km / 8766 hr is 107,000 km/hr or 30 km/sec
or 585,628,547 mi / 8766 hr is 66,806 mph or 18.5 mi/sec


So we're rotating and revolving like crazy, but who takes notice?

: )

If you like pollution so much, why not just suck on an exhaust pipe?

Edited by hknewman on 06/22/2011 16:16:07 MDT.

"Global Warming" did not sell. So now the politicians, lobbyists, grant seekers, administrators, bureaucrats, quasi-scientists, unemployable scientists, hidden agenda-alarmists, power brokers, and others have re-named it "Climate Change" to try and take more money from those who earn it, and try to control their lives.

Thanks Nick.....

Edited by davidlutz on 06/03/2011 13:57:01 MDT.

the way we see everything in the world today is through the eyes of the computers

the models crank out the global warming - i mean, climate change numbers. Then we use those numbers to adjust policies and money. More numbers. More decisions.

Don't know if you seen this BBC documentary...

All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2j3BhL47c

Starts off with Ayn Rand footage and goes through financial crisis

The concept, IMO, relates to climate change debate as it relates to computers having control of our lives.

Global warming did sell, it sold so well that big business has to, and continues to spend many billions of dollars into raising doubt and confusion.