quote:

How big are the error bars on the plots?

Probably as large as the error bars on the government's estimates for the numbers of migrants we can expect once things get really hot!

Lucibee.

quote:

I think you'll find that we are in the interglacial period of an ice age.

I also think the "have another graph" posting was a response to me.

The two phrases 'interglacial period' and 'ice age' are totally opposite terms to each other. The term 'ice age' means just what it says, an 'ice age'. The term 'interglacial period' means the opposite, it means the period in between 'ice ages', or if you like a warmer period when there isn't an 'ice age', or 'glacial'. It's important not to confuse these two terms because they mean totally different climates.


I wrote most of this last night and haven't had time to return earlier today (wow, this thread's grown). I notice the 'graph' has gone, but I'll post this anyway.

I can understand why the graph you linked to may give you some consternation, but just look at the time-scales and the 'periods' covered. The Phanerozoic 'eon' includes the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic 'eras' and thus the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Palaeocene and Neogene 'periods'. The Most recent of these 'periods' (Neogene) is continuing and started about 23 My ago (we should live that long)! Is this not so?

The subject of the time-scale is the oxygen isotope 'delta 18', or in many other cases of this innovative diagnostic this may include a deuterium isotope as well. Samples that provide the substance for this analysis are taken from lake sediments, or even sedimentary rock (I may stand corrected on these points). The main 'drawbacks' of the diagnostic seem to be the accurate prediction of water salinity on isotope formation and the 'diagnostic time lag' to present day analysis, but I guess you'll inform me otherwise.

Lucibee, your graph doesn't (didn't) show a temperature scale, or a trend more recent than 25-30 My ago! On what do you (did you) base your 'point' with this graph?

Best regards, suricat.

Lucibee.

OK. I've had time to read the rest of the thread now.

quote:

Anyway, in case you didn't see it before it was purged, we are still in the midst of an ice age (albeit a slightly warmer period or interglacial) that has been going on for the past 50 million years. During that time, there have been many fluctuations in and out of the depths of the cold (aforementioned Milankovitch cycles).

The simple response is that the original 'symbiotic' life forms have become much, much, more complex now and are much, much, more prolific. Forcings and feedbacks have changed! Why should history repeat in this instance? Your graph gave a 'much longer' time-line than 50 My!

quote:

From what I can glean, it seems that the warmest it has been while life has existed on the surface of the Earth is about 4 degrees warmer than it is now. I hope that puts our 0.8 degree increase in the last 100 years into perspective somewhat. Given that our entire existence (5 million years or so) has been during a period of relative cool, I would guess any concern is about how we would cope if things get very much hotter. I have no doubt that some of us will - but given our wonderful ability to adapt, and our potential to mould and destroy, correct and master - maybe we should be concentrating on trying to reverse the process?

Well, for the first point. Come back in 500 years time (your time scale) and we'll discuss why the 0.8 degree per century (estimated) either did, or didn't, happen to cause the highest ever temperature. Also, this 0.8 degree per century is a carefully calculated 'global average', not a 'particular' temperature at some 'particular' place at some 'particular' point in time!

Humans do have a considerable ability to adapt, though this becomes more difficult with increasing age, or less 'survival tools' from a reduced education level. Mould and destroy? If you make something and it isn't what you intended, why not destroy it? Correct and master? This is 'SOo' 'control freakish' that it doesn't warrant a response. Perhaps it would be better to fully 'understand' the 'problem' before "concentrating on trying to reverse the process"?

quote:

I suppose we are as natural as anything else on the planet - but with understanding comes responsibility...

I disagree. Understanding begets cognisance (or vice versa). Freedom to act begets responsibility ('and' vice versa). However, the main emphasis is on the responsible individual that has the freedom to act (this is a sociological thing). Any individual that acts due to freedom, but without the responsibility for that act, could be considered the perpetrator of a sociologically illegal act (infringement of civil liberty) and any individual that does not act when they are responsible to do so could also be considered the same (dereliction of civil duty).

Just be sure that your actions are compatible with your 'freedoms' and 'responsibilities'.

DISCLAIMER!
I'm not qualified to say this, but it is my 'considered' opinion.

Hope this helps.

Best regards, suricat.

Roger58

quote:

Awww guys. Lost for words again (this is becoming a habit)? It's not difficult... all you have to do is string a few together and - hey presto! you have a real, grown up sentence! If you think human-nature has no place in a debate about humans and nature you can simply say so. Here, I'll give you a hand...

1) "Roger, I think human-nature has no place in a debate about humans and nature because.................. (10 words min please)

2) "Roger, I understand the points you are trying to make, but when it comes to human-nature's part in GW, I believe you would be better off considering the following.................. (10 words min please)

3) "Roger, your comments on the science of human-nature are interesting and contribute something to the GW debate. I am beginning to widen my appreciation of the problem and I'd like to add.................. (10 words min please)

This is not the modern way. You need to supply a multiple choice of completions for each of your statements setup as a questionaire. Then you'll be able to psychoanalyse each person's replies and establish their geo-psycho-meteorological profile.

Meanwhile I'll keep plugging away at trying to understand whether physical AGW predictions are valid within our current knowledge of the laws of physics and physical observations.

Suricat

quote:

The two phrases 'interglacial period' and 'ice age' are totally opposite terms to each other. The term 'ice age' means just what it says, an 'ice age'. The term 'interglacial period' means the opposite, it means the period in between 'ice ages', or if you like a warmer period when there isn't an 'ice age', or 'glacial'. It's important not to confuse these two terms because they mean totally different climates.

Sorry wrong on a couple of point here. Over this planets history the "natural" state is for no polar ice caps. When they develop there is an "ice age". There still are polar ice caps therefore we are still in an ice age. The term "interglacial" refers to the periods between maximum glacial expansion when the ice caps are either expanding or as noted today,retreating.
The Neogene period ceased 1.8 million years ago at the end of the Pliocene, the Neogene period encompassed both the Pliocene and Miocene epochs.
Today we are in the Holocene epoch of the Quaternary period in the Cenozoic era of the Phanerozic eon.
Sorry to be such a pendant on this subject.

Geoman.

Thanks for this correction. I'm new to climatology (and palaeoclimatology). I just knew it was a bad idea to use 'wiki' for a reference!

Best regards, suricat.

Still no come-back on my question regarding present-day terrestrial heat flow of 44 trillion watts into the environment and the IPCC climate model. Over half of which goes into the oceans mostly along the sea floor spreading ridges.

That's because Steve_M answered you in the other thread!!!

And re ice ages, I knew I hadn't misremembered a lecture given by Bill McGuire...

And as to control freakishness - I think our species has had a fairly controlling attitude towards nature for a very long time, ... since our development of agriculture.

It seems odd that so many people feel that we should leave the climate well alone when we have changed so many other things to our own ends...

Rog, your comments on the science of human-nature are of little consequence to the debate about AGW. I suggest you start another thread and debate it with yourself.

_{shhhh...Seskinreay....don't provoke him...just ignore him and he'll go away...}

quote:

Thanks Steve_M for your reply. This is not the point however. How do you ensure that for example the temperature measured and the accuracy of measurement for sites,say, A in Japan, B in Keyna and C in Canada all have the same quality control? Is there an agreed protocol for such measurements and data reduction to calculate this mean global temperature and most importantly the placement of measuring locations?

The mean global temperature is not important. It's the mean global temperature anomaly - the average change in temperature. Each location will be slightly different in some way, but it's the change in its temperature over time that is important rather than the absolute temperature.

So the important thing is the changes that occur at a particular location. For example, if a weather station's equipment is changed then its temperature readings may jump or fall due to a difference in the properties. By comparing with nearby sites, the size of this discontinuity can be calibrated and an adjustment added.

Slower changes, such as a nearby build-up of urban development can affect a site. But similarly, there are other sites that are not affected that can be used to recalibrate the affected site.

For ocean temperatures, the design of the bucket used to collect water samples, and the way it is used can influence readings. For example, apparently during the war, sailors didn't throw buckets out far enough for fear of catching a mine, and this resulted in temperatures being influenced by the ship.

It's all jolly complicated and results in a lot of debate!

quote:

That's because Steve_M answered you in the other thread!!!

Didn't spot the question in this thread. My answer on the other thread appeared 1 minute later than Geoman's restatement of the question

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
shhhh...Seskinreay....don't provoke him...just ignore him and he'll go away...

Don't you mean "...just ignore the question and it will go away..."? I am only the asker of it.

Seskinreay, you say "comments on the science of human-nature are of little consequence to the debate about AGW" - can you explain why?

I am not aware of you asking any questions, just avoiding answering them...

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Rog, your comments on the science of human-nature are of little consequence to the debate about AGW. I suggest you start another thread and debate it with yourself.

Do you think that we should join in or leave him to it? To mass-debate or not?

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I am not aware of you asking any questions, just avoiding answering them...

Then you're not paying attention Lucibee. You asked me if the raise in CO2 should be a cause for alarm. I answered that I didn't think so and explained why in an effort to help you. At every stage I prompted your response but you declined.

Perhaps you're not really alarmed at all and were just inviting other people to be alarmed? After all, 'alarm' is a domesticated version of 'terror' (a fear without the bicycle clips). So your question is then like a member of al-Qaeda asking if a raise in bombing should be a cause for terror. In both events, the implied invitation is - if only the public submits to the will of the group, the fear will go away.

I wasn't asking for your help Roger. I was just interested to know why you thought that an increase in CO2 wasn't a problem. I guess from your answers that you think either there isn't an increase - that the IPCC have made it up for their own sinister ends, or that if it is, it won't have any effect on anything else. But you give no scientific reasons or sound research for why this should be so. Human nature is indeed important in this - but not in the way in which you are trying to imply!

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
shhhh...Seskinreay....don't provoke him...just ignore him and he'll go away...

Don't you mean "...just ignore the question and it will go away..."? I am only the asker of it.

Seskinreay, you say "comments on the science of human-nature are of little consequence to the debate about AGW" - can you explain why?

Rog, yes I can. In fact its a bit rich you suggesting I can't with your track record.

Anyway, start a thread entitled "Human Nature According to Roger58" and we can debate it till the cows come home and in the process we can avoid polluting other threads with your rather large and pointless distractions.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I wasn't asking for your help Roger. I was just interested to know why you thought that an increase in CO2 wasn't a problem. Human nature is indeed important in this - but not in the way in which you are trying to imply!

Lucibee - I have tried to answer your question as best as I can. If my answers are unsatisfactory to you - or if they are not the answers you wanted - then it might be the quality of your question that needs to be examined. That your question keeps undergoing subtle shifts (from 'alarm' to 'worry' to 'problem') suggests this is the case. Your question to me now stands at 'Is an increase in CO2 a problem?'

So an answer depends on what you mean by 'problem'. As a problem is something to be solved or negated, we can understand it to mean an 'obstacle'. So your question becomes 'Is an increase in CO2 an obstacle?' (this removes all the previous emotionality).

Now we can say: if an increase in CO2 is an obstacle - what is it an obstacle to? That is... what do humans do that an increase in CO2 is an obstacle to?

As an increase in CO2 is an effect, it also becomes important to discover its cause. Judging from plenty of pro-AGW material, the primary 'causer' is claimed to be the oil-industry. If this is the case, your question becomes 'is the oil-industry an obstacle?'

Now we can say: if the oil-industry is an obstacle - what is it an obstacle to? That is... what do humans do that the oil-industry is an obstacle to?

Historically, the oil-industry has not been an obstacle to what humans do... in fact the oil-industry enables (and sustains) pretty much everything humans do.

So, if the oil-industy is no obstacle at all to what humans DO, it can only be an obstacle to what (some) humans WISH TO DO.

At this point we can note that 'wishes' are often kept secret as a requirement of their becoming 'reality'. A revealed wish will often bump into real obstacles placed in its path (as the socialism wish did).

As the oil-industry materially enables and sustains a human nature that has always defined success in terms of a structured accumulation of material and hierarchical wealth, then the oil-industry is the obstacle to any human (or group of humans) wishing human nature to be other than what it is.

And your question can now be coherently presented as: 'Is human nature an obstacle to my wishing?' - and you simply need look at the world around you for the answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:
Historically, the oil-industry has not been an obstacle to what humans do... in fact the oil-industry enables (and sustains) pretty much everything humans do.

Rog, I have a problem with the "and sustains" otherwise its is true we have become wholly dependant on the oil industry - which is a big problem not least because of AGW.

If you want to debate further, I'll see you on the Human Nature thread.

My question was not about human nature, Roger. It was about you - and from your obtuse responses, I deduce that you are not human!