Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[nathanm]

Then don't we have it the wrong way around? If CO2 is a lagging indicator or temperature, then what would reducing carbon emissions solve?

It's a feedback loop. More carbon dioxide causes warmer temperatures which causes further rises in carbon dioxide and methane as biological decay rates are increased. You have to have something to kickstart the process. Historically, that's usually been the earth being closer to the sun and changes to the angle of the earth's axis, both of which change on the order of eons. Generally speaking, historic warmings have taken about 5000 years to complete. The lag time is about 800 years, so at least some of the warming is probably caused by increased carbon dioxide levels.

What is nearly unprecedented is the speed of the rise in carbon dioxide levels and temperature that we've seen without a corresponding change in the amount of solar insolation. This is, of course, due to our digging up massive amounts of carbon-based fuel from the ground and burning it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

What is nearly unprecedented is the speed of the rise in carbon dioxide levels and temperature that we've seen without a corresponding change in the amount of solar insolation. This is, of course, due to our digging up massive amounts of carbon-based fuel from the ground and burning it.

We have such a short time measuring it, it is very difficult to make any kind of statement about historical solar insolation.

Sunspot observations go back a few hundred years, and even that is tough to make a really good call on.  The 400,000 year chart shows 500 and 1000 year variations as pretty much just a popcorn fart in the overall scheme of things.  But we are putting a whole lot of dead animals and vegetation back in the atmosphere at the same time we are cutting down the big forests that could really benefit from and help with that.  This one is gonna be a doozy, no matter which way it goes.  As I have said before; it will either not make a difference, or it is already too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

[Red Arrow]

It's a feedback loop.

Do all of your amplifiers oscillate and all your oscillators amplify?
 
 

[nathanm]

We have such a short time measuring it, it is very difficult to make any kind of statement about historical solar insolation.

If you disbelieve newtonian mechanics, anyway.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If you disbelieve newtonian mechanics, anyway.

??  For last 30 years, it looks bad.  But then it looked bad between 1890 and 1930.  Then better for a while from 1940 to 1980.

For 400,000 years - well it's another day in the cycle.

We still don't understand enough.

[nathanm]

??

The distance to the sun and angle of incidence of solar radiation at any given time in the past or future can be calculated. This change is apparently much greater than the variations between solar cycles. Physics. It's a grumble.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The distance to the sun and angle of incidence of solar radiation at any given time in the past or future can be calculated. This change is apparently much greater than the variations between solar cycles. Physics. It's a grumble.

Yes, you can use that.  But the local incidental occurrences always trump that when they occur.  Krakatoa for instance.  Whatever event happened at the KT boundary - we would have to burn coal another 200 years and even then probably wouldn't get close.  Yellowstone the last time it blew up.  (Looks like it is starting to stretch out again.)  Cutting down all the rain forests.  And yes, burning all the coal in the ground.  All bad ideas.

Then ya gotta wonder - and I mentioned this before - what happens when we shade 10% or 15% of the planet's surface area with energy collection devices?  (Can't say it will never happen - look how much concrete covers surface area here - we definitely see 'heat islands' around our cities.)  Or use so much wind velocity that it changes the orbit of the planet?  Yeah, I know, wild, out of control speculation, but it is stuff we should be thinking about beforehand, unlike the previous methods of doing stuff.  Like digging up coal and burning it.  Or cutting down all the trees and burning them.

[Red Arrow]

One question - about the dictatorial confiscation - where did you ever hear of that happening? 

I have heard of property owners not being allowed to use their land for anything because it's the habitat for an obscure life form.  Insect, snail, something like that.  When the government or an agency of the government does that, the land should be removed from the tax roles.

[Red Arrow]

If you disbelieve newtonian mechanics, anyway.

Newton was fine for as far as he could go.  Higher order terms can change things though.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have heard of property owners not being allowed to use their land for anything because it's the habitat for an obscure life form.  Insect, snail, something like that.  When the government or an agency of the government does that, the land should be removed from the tax roles.

There have been a few of those.  I think the count is up to about 3 now. 

Wildlife dept with Dept of Ag has a program for wildlife habitat.  Family has thought about that, but they didn't really have big enough place to mess with (for them).

[Red Arrow]

There have been a few of those.  I think the count is up to about 3 now. 

Excuse me if I don't believe your data.  I'm reasonably sure it is not an epidemic but only 3?  I doubt it because I don't gravitate to obscure environmentalist news outlets.

[nathanm]

Yes, you can use that.  But the local incidental occurrences always trump that when they occur.  Krakatoa for instance.  Whatever event happened at the KT boundary - we would have to burn coal another 200 years and even then probably wouldn't get close.  Yellowstone the last time it blew up.  (Looks like it is starting to stretch out again.)  Cutting down all the rain forests.  And yes, burning all the coal in the ground.  All bad ideas.

Then ya gotta wonder - and I mentioned this before - what happens when we shade 10% or 15% of the planet's surface area with energy collection devices?  (Can't say it will never happen - look how much concrete covers surface area here - we definitely see 'heat islands' around our cities.)  Or use so much wind velocity that it changes the orbit of the planet?  Yeah, I know, wild, out of control speculation, but it is stuff we should be thinking about beforehand, unlike the previous methods of doing stuff.  Like digging up coal and burning it.  Or cutting down all the trees and burning them.

Sure, there will always be variations, but that doesn't preclude us from observing the trend among noisy data. There are whole fields of mathematics dedicated to doing that in various ways.

As for your question of shade, it depends. What's the present level of GHG forcing in the atmosphere? What was the albedo of the land covered by the energy collection devices?

And please explain how moving friction already extant within the atmosphere from one place on the surface of the earth to another can cause a net change in the rotational energy of the earth. That's a doozy on the level of the people who refuse to acknowledge that carbon dioxide is even a greenhouse gas, as best I can tell.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Excuse me if I don't believe your data.  I'm reasonably sure it is not an epidemic but only 3?  I doubt it because I don't gravitate to obscure environmentalist news outlets.

Literary device to make a point using extreme exaggeration.

Yeah, I bet there are more.  Didn't we have a discussion here about eminent domain some time back?  Another pet peeve that I have...

[Red Arrow]

Literary device to make a point using extreme exaggeration.

Which you have used often enough that I no longer accept any data you post without independent verification.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Which you have used often enough that I no longer accept any data you post without independent verification.

I have made a conscious effort lately to start putting an LOL or a comment at the end, such as (irony, satire, sarcasm) to help define the boundaries.  But then I lapse... I blame Alzheimer's.  And you do realize that 8 out of every 10 statistics is made up on the spot?