July 25, 2012 at 12:33 am #490578BullseyeMember
New research show that the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide, of climates of the past has a much shorter lead time, delay, than previously thought. This lead time, when temperature rises followed by rises in carbon dioxide, was thought to be approximately 1000 years. New information show this delay is at most 200 years. What this means is we have less time to act on reducing atmospheric CO2 and emissions than previously thought.
Compared with the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period, industrialised humanity has released as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in only 150 years as the natural transition increase of carbon dioxide over 8,000 years.
NOTE: the closeness of the relationship of temperature to CO2 in the graph.
We can look to the future from researching climates of the past, i.e. increase CO2 an increase of temperature is expected. With an increase of temperature, we can expect more extremes of weather. That means the impacts of climate change are: more severe cyclones, more intense rain rather than less intense regular rain, more flooding, more intense electrical storms, more drought and for longer periods, bushfires of greater intensity more often . In short, a far more difficult climate for agriculture for farming, cropping and grazing. On the extreme end of climate change is a tipping point, from which our climate doesn’t return from in a very long time, or if ever.
The research results show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere followed the temperature in Antarctica closely throughout the shift from ice age to interglacial in the period 19-11,000 years before the present. The green curve shows the temperature from measurements from the 5 ice cores marked on the map. The red and blue curves show the atmospheric CO2 content in the air bubbles in the ice cores from the two bores at Siple Dome (red) and Byrd (blue). The analysis shows that the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. That the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the Antarctic temperature so closely suggests that processes in the ocean around Antarctica play an important role in the rise in CO2.July 25, 2012 at 10:45 am #490579AnonymousGuest
wow people are really hooked!
look without further ado, do you have any sattelite pic’s’graphs or any pic’s/graphs from back in the viking days to compare with? teh current pic’s simply just today pic’s they are no good without comparisson pics from up to maybe 1k or 2k years ago?
but anyway you all look like happy little vegemites. and that’s important.
but it would be nice to see comparative pic’s from the last warmer period.
lenJuly 25, 2012 at 11:59 am #490580AndreKeymaster
Looks impressive, and frightening, statistics/measurements there, Bullseye.
The make up of the atmosphere from ages past, and also climate history, can be gleaned from such things as tree rings, core samples of the earths crust and ice/glaciers, just to name a few. .. for those times when satellite imagery wasn’t available .. like 10,000 – 100,000 years ago.
(well, not our satellites, anyway)
:laugh:July 25, 2012 at 12:33 pm #490581AnonymousGuest
there ya go hey, no hard evidence from even 5k years ago, just modern happy snaps and mathematical calculations.
the now 67% of australians still not sold on it.
me proudly one of them
lenJuly 25, 2012 at 2:04 pm #490582owlbrudderMember
Bullseye post=346887 wrote: New research show that the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide, of climates of the past has a much shorter lead time, delay, than previously thought. This lead time, when temperature rises followed by rises in carbon dioxide, was thought to be approximately 1000 years. New information show this delay is at most 200 years. What this means is we have less time to act on reducing atmospheric CO2 and emissions than previously thought.
That is significant, given that the anti-AGW lobby has relied upon the meme of CO2 lag proving that the climate is not sensitive to chaging CO2 levels.
Of course, the usual suspects will put their fingers in their ears and sing “La la la la”, to prevent any new information entering their heads and threatening their blissful ignorance. I am amused that the usual suspects at ALS have not had sufficient confidence in their convictions to start a thread titled “Climate Change Is Crap”, where they can stamp their little feet and wave their little arms to their hearts’ content. Sadly, nothing much will change in human culture as long as the voices of the blissfully ignorant can drown out the voices of the worried enlightened. We who can see the growing problem need to live and act in ways that minimise our impact, little though that might be, in the hope that our example can help the understanding of AGW gain momentum in the wider society.July 25, 2012 at 2:33 pm #490583AnonymousGuest
seems like you feel your intelligence as such has been compromised in someway owl’?
1st i would hope that the masses as a whole do not consider uncorroborated; speculative; coincidental; or circumstantial evidence as fact because as we all know they do not represent fact.
whilst peer reviewing each other keep in mind those worshipers of the co2 climate change religion are the ones who have to sell what the speculate is happening it is a lot like say a mormon knocking on your door they have to sell you on what they have don’t they?
so right now me and a lot like me aren’t interested in buying what you are trying to sell, probably because it is being sold off the plan before acquisitions have been put in place.
right now i would wonder why so much verbal defense is needed when your hypothesis has been accepted and acted on by the gov’ to forever hang about our necks like that albatros in the ancient mariner.
so you have won what’s the problem?
lenJuly 25, 2012 at 6:22 pm #490584AirgeadMember
You don’t agree. Ok. We get it.
This thread is for discussing the potential impacts of climate change, not debating whether it exists. We have had that debate on here many times before and it goes nowhere.
We respect your right to be wrong (in our opinion), please respect our right to be wrong (in yours). Don’t feel the need to point out how wrong we all are after each post. It isn’t helpful. No one is going to change anyone’s mind at this stage.
If you don’t think there will be any impacts because its all a myth, that’s fine, just leave us alone to wallow in our own ignorance or whatever.
Everyone else – I know its tempting to respond to the “no it isn’t” posts but please don’t. Let’s keep this on topic.
DaveJuly 25, 2012 at 6:40 pm #490585AnonymousGuest
fine line to draw dave,
those who are pro co2 climate change aren’t saying what is going to happen anyway, they won’t say what it will mean for the poorer classes while those who believe say we need to be seen to do something.
not being able to afford power, food, water, fuel and all we need to live a simple life is pointing out impacts, because none of us will ever be able to walk out into our yards and say look that’s co2 climate change will we?
lenJuly 25, 2012 at 10:53 pm #490586BullseyeMember
Far be it from me to point out the bleeding obvious…the difference between weather, climate and climate change.
Weather is what we see and feel. Feel the rain, the heat, the cold, the wind, the snow. You can’t see climate. You can see and feel the weather of a climate… To determine the climate you’d want to experience and record the weather (for quite a long time), otherwise you might forget what you measured and be non objective.
Climate, weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. Climate, “observable” through other kinds of observations, measurements, quantitative observations, scientific study. Climate change, observable through observations of the measurable kind over longer periods than those measurements needed for determining a climate.
Easy enough to measure the CO2 concentration of our atmosphere, I reckon you could even buy a meter on ebay. 🙂
“Look at that meter, today its says 395 parts per million in 2012, gee, in 2009 CO2 global average concentration in Earth’s atmosphere was 387 parts per million, CO2 is rising”… “Bugger, it was about 280 ppm concentration in pre-industrial times”. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JD03410.shtmlJuly 26, 2012 at 11:51 am #490587AndreKeymaster
Blah blah blah :shrug:
Some old adages come to mind: empty vessels make the most noise; if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything. 👿
A few other sayings come to mind .. but I’ll be polite.
So .. it has come to pass that, even with repeated attempts at subtle and NOT so subtle warnings, those who have nothing to contribute, still open their ‘mouths’.
Once again, a thread that has been VERY informative, with scientific EVIDENCE, has come down to a repetitive argument of IS too!.. Is not!
And after requests/challenge for the Is NOT! group to back their statements, the offer has been ignored/declined.
I dare say even the most staunch believer in Climate Change would seriously consider the thoughts of the deniers, if some form of evidence was presented to back up their claims. It would appear, from the lack of said back-up, that maybe there IS no back-up evidence to their claim.
Not everything relies on the convenience of FAITH alone.
Another worthy thread bites the dust.
Grow up people
And just to show, we can still smile
(this is from Steve)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.