[off topic] Balmy North Pole

_{October 9, 2006

Intelligent Design, Off Topic, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A news brief in Scientific American (subscriber only, no link) alerted me to the following article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060601091313.htm

Summarized:

Core sediments retrieved by three icebreakers recently analyzed reveal the following:

-North Pole’s temperature 55 million years ago: 23C/73F (today it is -20C/-4F)

-Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 55mya was 2000 ppm (today it is 380 ppm)

-Global average temperature 55mya under above conditions was 5C/9F degrees C higher than today (in Sciam News Brief only, Science Daily says tropics remained liveable).

Obviously, the earth recovered, if it was even “harmed”. I post this because so-called global warming is blamed on human activities by the worst kind of consensus pseudoscience (Darwinian evolution is consensus pseudoscience as well) and is projected to be catastrophic. But look at this recent data. With carbon dioxide concentration 5 times higher than today the global average temperature rise is within normal year-to-year variation we all experience right now. The earth doesn’t turn into a runaway greenhouse. We don’t have enough fossil fuel on the planet to quintuple the CO2 in the atmosphere. It happens WITHOUT human activity. It’s NORMAL. Sea levels will rise. Ocean salinity will decrease. Life will go on thriving like it always has. Just like forest fires give certain species their turn at bat in the cyclically changing environment so too does global warming. These are the facts.

Comments

I found the data on CO2 levels through 2004 from the Hawaii staion which has been measuring it since 1958. Not only is the concentration increasing but it is increasing at an increasing rate of increase per annum as the following data indicates. For the interval from 1800 through 1958 when the Hawaii station began measurements of CO2 in ppm increased from ca. 280 to 316 ppm, a rate of .oo7% per annum. For the interval 1958 through 2004 it increased from 316 to377 ppm, an increase of .42% per annum. For the decade 1994 to 2004 it increased from 358 to 377 ppm, an increase of .53% per annum. From what I can determine the concentrations for the one thousand years prior to the onset of the industrial revolution were pretty constant at around 280 ppm. This leaves little doubt in my mind that the increases we observe are due to the activity of man. Others of course will draw their own conclusions. I think the data speak for themselves. "Hypotheses have to be reasonable - facts don't." anonymous "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Houdin The hottest summer on record in the U.S. was in 1936. Ever heard of "The Dust Bowl"? What are you going to blame that on? Newsflash: Climate varies from year to year. What happened to all those hurricanes that the nattering nabobs of negativity predicted for this year? Oops. Someone is feeding you a line of BS about 120 degree temperatures in Brownsville. The record for 2005 year was 104 and it never got over 100 in 2006. http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KBRO/2005/8/12/MonthlyHistory.html DaveScot_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe the 2000 ppm levels of CO2. What was the source for all that CO2? Volcanic activity? It sounds to me like someone got his decimal point in the wrong place at least. Am I missing something? Yes you're missing something. It's in the Science Daily I linked to. Did you bother reading it before commenting?
The PETM was caused by a huge release of a greenhouse gas, possibly carbon dioxide or methane, into the atmosphere. If methane was the source of carbon, global warming was ultimately the result of higher carbon dioxide concentrations, as the methane would have been rapidly converted to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Before you ask where all the methane came from read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate if it's not too much trouble of course.DaveScot_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

John, there are more than 600 coal-fire power plants in the US. I cannot take seriously anybody claiming global warming to be threat who is not actively campaigning to replace them with nukes.tribune7_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

DaveScot I don't reject your opinions. I reject the certainty with which you express them. As for Ann Coulter, I think she is brilliant but she is a lawyer not a scientist. I can say the same for Phillip Johnson. Norman Macbeth was another brilliant lawyer and very effective critic of the Darwinian fairy tale. The problems we are facing have nothing to do with the mechanism of organic evolution anyway. They are practical matters of survival and should be given very careful consideration. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

DaveScot Natural cycles are one thing but the contemporary situation is entirely man made. Global warming is still up for grabs but rapidly ascending CO2 levels are as real as can be. To dismiss, as you do, the current scenario with disdain is unacceptable, arrogant and dangerous. I don't believe the 2000 ppm levels of CO2. What was the source for all that CO2? Volcanic activity? It sounds to me like someone got his decimal point in the wrong place at least. Am I missing something? "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Dave, have you given any thought about how global warming will affect you in Texas? My neighbors are originally from Brownsville and when they visited their home town last summer, they had to stay indoors all the time because the temperature was 120 F and they couldn't bear it. Add another ten degrees to that 120 F and southern Texas is going to be unihabitable. And Austin isn't that far north of Brownsville.Houdin_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

John At the rate we are burning fossil fuel it's going to be gone in less than a century anyhow. This alone drives conservation. At the rate CO2 is building up we won't be anywhere near the natural high levels in the past. That's why I wrote the article - in the past CO2 levels were 2000 parts per million and while the icecaps melted and the sea level rose 30 meters that was the extent of it. The rest of the earth didn't heat up much. The increased northern latitude temperatures turned permafrost regions into temperate forest. The huge plant bloom from the higher Co2 levels eventually lowered the CO2 levels and we had another ice age. Without greenhouse heating the earth would be a frozen wasteland.DaveScot_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

bFast You ignore the economic consequences of positive action taken to slow manmade greenhouse gas emission. You also skip over the fact that we don't even know if it will have any measureable effect. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. You don't get a brighter, happier world. You get slower economic growth and lowered standards of living. While those of us in rich industrialized countries can absorb a lower living standard without anyone starving to death those in non-industrialized countries where people are already starving will get even worse. And we aren't even assured it will slow down global warming.DaveScot_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

jerry The land under the current North Pole was probably somewhere else 55 mya. Seafloors don't move around like continents. Seafloor is continuously generated at mid-ocean ridges and continuously sucked back into the earth at continental plate boundaries and undersea trenches. Unlike continental plates which are billions of years old little of the seafloor is over 200 million years old.DaveScot_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

John An awful lot of people think global warming is hysteria fueled by bad science. It isn't me and me alone. The United States Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty by a vote of 95-0. Even Japan rejected it. As Ann Coulter said even Kyoto rejected Kyoto. I believe you respect Coulter's opinions even if you happen to reject mine in this matter.DaveScot_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

John Davison: "The wilfull destruction of the environment by man is not a hoax." There seems to be clear strong indications that the earth is warming. What does not exist is a clear cause. If man is causing the warming, it's up to the yapping dogs to make a solid case. So far they have not.mike1962_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: "I still remember the last pseudoscience brouhaha - nuclear winter over 20 years ago." Yeah, I still remember the last computer bruhaha almost seven years ago. All the trains would stop running, and the power grid would stop working. Economic collapse and rioting in the street. Remember what that was? Y2K. Hell, humans INVENTED computers and wrote all the software and still the many "experts" and yacking media dogs couldn't see how ridiculous it was. Lot's of smoke, but no fire. Humans are funny.mike1962_{October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Why is it that those who have fallen for the global warning hype think that those who have NOT, are not interested in cleaning the air, lower pollution and hybrid cars. I can't wait for the day hybrids (or some other zero-emissions vehicle) are within my price range. I'm looking forward to silent cars - I'll be able to enjoy my music more. Pity the poor blind people stepping off the curbs though. Ouch! I am a "greeny" in so many ways, always going out of my way to conserve energy and the earth's natural resources wherever I can. But wanting to be "green" doesn't mean checking my brain with Al Gore! The earth goes through cyclic variations, it's part of the design, not something we humans have contributed to in a major way. A minor way? Perhaps. Probably. But don't fret, if you can invent the Internet, you can find a way out of this puddle.Gods iPod_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

Patrick, re your point 7. "Better batteries". There are a variety of non-chemical options that are worthy of being explored to replace the battery. The flywheel, and compressed air come to mind immediately.bFast_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Personally I'd like to see the ultimate energy efficient car: 1. Hybrid engine that can use either gasoline or biodiesel AND that can use hydrogen fuel cells. See the BMW 745h slated for 2008: http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/stragegy.htm http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/faq.htm http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/front_website/gallery.php?o=0&id=208043 http://www.bmwworld.com/pics/7er/7350_1024.jpg 2. Lighter weight components. 3. Energy generating braking systems. 4. Solar panels of the past were ugly. Companies now make panels that look exactly like the normal painted shell of a car. Of course, any minor accident would then get very expensive and/or fry electronics... 5. Plug-in capability. 6. The ability to completely switch off the gas usage for in-town driving. 7. Better batteries. I remember reading a month ago an article about a modified hybrid that could run on an additional battery they kept in the trunk. Thing is, the battery alone was around $15,000... I here now officially hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion on what most guys enjoy gabbing about: cars. Just kidding. ;)Patrick_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
How do hybrids lower the cost of energy even if the vehicle itself comes down in cost? Yes we will use less oil but only if we produce the electricity for the battery with some other energy source.
Oops, that little word "efficiency" seems to be missing. The retail hybrid vehicles run purely on gasoline -- they do not support a plug in charging solution that I know of. They are simply more efficient, about twice as efficient especially in city driving. Though I think that nuclear energy is something that we may need to revisit, I had not mentioned it. Three mile island and Chernoble are certainly good cases to cause us to be very cautious about returning to the nuclear age. I think there's a lot to be said for wind and wave power, however. Again with wind power, I believe that the economy of scale will address the fact that it is currently fairly expensive energy. I have also heard rumblings of clean methods of extracting diesel fuel from coal, and from garbage, including from rubber tires. Then, as Dr. Davison mentioned, there's ethanol from crops such as corn. There are a lot of options rising to the surface, the speed at which they rise will be affected by how important the issue of global warning is to each of us individual consumers. Jerry:
By the way what is causing the icecaps on Mars to melt? Apparently it is now happening.
See the second part of my post #11 above for my response. The argument "its happening on mars too" is just another twist on the "we aren't responsible" position. I still choose to err on the side of caution on this one because the cost of such an error is minimal compared to the cost of erring on the side of environmental irresponsibility.bFast_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Where can I find the Hawaiian CO2 levels in parts per million for 1996 to present. I want to plot it all out as it looks like a power function to me of the form ppm = A times e raised to the KT power, at least for the period 1800 to present which corresponds to the industrial era. If that is so, ( ln ppm ) versus T in years will be a straight line. The nice thing about straight lines is that they can be extrapolated. I hope no one minds if I do that. OK? From what I have read, CO2 levels were pretty constant for the thousand years prior to 1800 at around 280 ppm. I am not very good at tracking things down on the internet. I am sure the most recent data is available somewhere. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

bFast, I think you do not understand the economics of all this. How do hybrids lower the cost of energy even if the vehicle itself comes down in cost? Yes we will use less oil but only if we produce the electricity for the battery with some other energy source. But then the other energy source becomes more expensive even if they are clean burning. And what are these other energy sources? Most have been tried. So are you advocating nuclear energy? I lived in the path of the fallout from 3 Mile Island and the big move is to get rid of what nuclear energy we now have not increase it. A move to reduce energy consumption would put a lot of people out of jobs and I am not so sure how pleasant that would be. Sounds good till you have to implrement it. During the last major episode of global warming which was the 11-13th centuries we had one of the biggest expanisions of economic activiy in the history of the world. Polution controls were heavily implemented starting in the early 1970's. Back then you could not see more than 10 blocks in New York City. Now you can see uptown and downtown as far as the buildings will let you. There may not be much more to extract from the air even in cities like New York City. By the way what is causing the icecaps on Mars to melt? Apparently it is now happening. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htmjerry_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

"Uhhhm Noah why are you building an Arc?" "Well because of the flood!" "What flood?" "Well I think it is comeing soon!" "MUHAHAHA you are crazey, Noah!" Rain is pouring down. Noahs in the Arc and a bunch of Americans are banging on the Arc door, but the door was shut. HEY ITS JUST A SILLY JOKE, don't poke me! Believe what you want to believe, but don't be to overly cautious when it comes to global warming. Maybe consider it as something serious :)tb_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
How does Ã¢â‚¬Å“we do something about itÃ¢â‚¬Â and lower energy prices happen. I would think we would want lower energy prices, regardless of global warming or not if it was readily achievable.
Lets consider this for a moment. Lets say that we focus on buying hybrid vehicles. The result would be that hybrids would come down in price simply due to the effects of mass production. But also research would be poured into making more effective hybrids. We would shell out more for a vehicle, but save at the pump. However, we would also be using up the "cheap oil" more slowly, staving off the eventual rise in price that is destined to happen when the cheap oil becomes scarce. Jerry:
Also I do not understand the other connections you make especially the brighter happier world.
Explore what London was like back when black moths were being studied. London cleaned up a lot when they reduced their reliance on coal. Consider the cost of things like acid rain. Wait for a nice calm day, then look at any city in the country from a nearby vantage point. You will see a yucky brown haze encasing the city. Would it not be "brighter and happier" to live in that same city without the smog blanket? I live in a location that virtually pollution free. Its quite pleasant.bFast_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

bfast, How does "we do something about it" and lower energy prices happen. I would think we would want lower energy prices, regardless of global warming or not if it was readily achievable. Also I do not understand the other connections you make especially the brighter happier world.jerry_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

According to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, global average temperatures in the years 1998-2005 did not increase, in fact there was a small decrease in temperatures.
Although they did increase in the years 1999-2005. If you look at the plot, 1998 was an anomaly, being particularly hot. Well done on a neat piece of statistical sophistry. And East Anglia is that big bump above London. I know it well: I got my PhD through the UEA (which is in Norwich: Norfolk'n'good). BobBob OH_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

As near as I can find out quickly, the level of atmospheric CO2 was fairly constant for the thousand years prior to 1800 at 280 ppm. In 1958 annual CO2 averages began to be recorded in Hawaii. In the northen hemisphere it goes up in the winter and down in the summer as plants serve as sinks for the CO2. In 1958 the level was 315 ppm, in 1994 358 ppm. I am sure it is substantially higher now. For the 158 years between 1800 and 1958, the average increase was about .oo71 percent per annum. For the thirty-six period beween 1958 and 1994 the average increase per annum was .031% per annum, 4.4 times greater. Obviously this is not a linear increase in CO2 as is also revealed by the Hawaii data when it is plotted. I couldn't find the more recent data but would like to have it. Since CO2 has been experimentally demonstrated to be the limiting factor for most plant growth, one obvious solution would be to plant enormous tracts of rapidly growing plants like corn to act as sinks for the CO2 and at the same time provide ethanol for fuel and human enjoyment. Brazil has already done as much. "Ooooh - that is good booze." Jackie Gleason I will remain concerned until we see a decline or stabilization of mean CO2 levels as a function of time. This is quite independent of global warming which I also regard as very real. Lake Champlain hasn't frozen over in 30 years. Ethan Allen, probably enebriated, fell off his sled while crossing Lake Champlain and died of exposure or so they say. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Anglia means England...duh! http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/Jipitea_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Jipitea, could you provide a link to your information? Where the heck is East Anglia, anyway? DaveScot, it is interesting to note your evidence that when co2 is 5 * what it is now, the north pole increases in temparature by over 75 degrees F., but the global average is only 9 degrees F. As one who lives north of 60, I am far more aware of global warming than people farther south are. Our mountains are loosing their snowcaps, scientists are studying 10,000 year old caribou dung that is coming to the surface. The permafrost is melting -- Dawson City is sinking. We don't experience the kind of cold winters we used to. I have begun research into Club Med North. I figure it'll be balmy perfect up here in about a decade, so I'm out to profit on it. You may want to join me in this venture. The doomsday community presents two realities that needs to be reconed with. Though global warming has certainly happened in the past, they suggest that it is happening more rapidly now than ever before. They suggest that the pace will be so fast that much of nature can't keep up. Secondly, if the avarage temperature changes just a bit, our civilization is going to be significantly effected. We seem to have built up a lot of civilization on the edges of the ocean. Therefore a few feet of rize in the level of the ocean will wreak significant havoc. Further, we build our buildings in a way that is optimized for the current temparature. For instance, up here, we make houses with excellent insulation and heating systems, but air conditioners are not considered. There are 4 possibilities, and 1 of 4 inevitable results: Possibility 1, Global warming is balderdash but we make our world cleaner anyway. Effect, reduced resparation problems, greater stamina, lower energy prices, and a brighter happier world. Possibility 2, Global warming is real and we do nothing. Effect, we may strike it rich with Club Med North. Possibility 3, Global warming is real and we do something about it. Effect, reduced resparation problems, greater stamina, lower energy prices, and a brighter happier world. Possibility 4, Global warming is balderdash and we do nothing. Effect, continued resparation problems, poor stamina, high energy prices , and a dingy world. Dispite recognizing that science can lead us way astray, as exemplified by the darwinian error, I would personally still err on the side of caution when it comes to global warming.bFast_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

According to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, global average temperatures in the years 1998-2005 did not increase, in fact there was a small decrease in temperatures. This happened despite the fact that manmade C02 emmissions increased dramatically. The typical doomsdayer will respond to this information by saying that such a time is too short to get an accurate grasp of the situation, but that individual will also tell you that the 28 year increase between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous increase in temperatures which is primarily the result of human activity. They will also ignore that such periods of warming also occured at the beginning of the century well before the greatest results of industrialization and before the global cooling that took place between 1940 and 1965.Jipitea_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

He folks, The land under the current North Pole was probably somewhere else 55 mya. About 45-55 mya ago was when India crashed into Asia forming the Himalayas. It probably caused the movements of other plates to change location too.jerry_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Finally I find a post by DS I can agree with. Something must have cooled dramatically today. :) "Greatest ever recorded"? Um, is that supposed to SOUND compelling? It sure doesn't. WHEN did records begin? How long has the earth been here? Now let's compare... Compelling? Hardly! Global warming is a hoax. Richard Branson, I honestly thought you had more brains. God help us if Gore ever become President.Gods iPod_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

I also do not care to be linked with Darwinian mysticism just because I happen to share certain views with some of them. Richard Leakey is a good example. Incidentally, the current rate of change in the level of atmospheric CO2 is the greatest ever recorded and has steadily increased every year it has been monitored. In my opinion, those who choose to ignore this are making a serious mistake. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply