Geological activity causing climate change (split from reasons not to worry)

[Unity+]

It wasn't an attack, but a sincere question given the responses you were providing.

If you seriously are going to hide behind a rational explanation...

[iNow]

Second picture: Okay...you give a percentage but fail to give the sample size out of the whole population. Also, no source given(for some one who accuses me of not giving sources, which I did).

Seriously? Perhaps you should look on the bottom right corner of the picture itself.

 

Source 1: Doran et al 2009 - http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

 

From the wiki summary:

 

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization.

 

76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.

 

Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:[/url]

 

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

 

Source 2: Anderegg et al 2010 - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

 

From the Skeptical Science site I like to cite for it's robustness and accuracy, we see the following summary of the Anderegg study:

 

 

 

There have been various surveys or petitions claiming that thousands of scientists are skeptical that humans are causing global warming. The thing is, when you peruse these lists, you find very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science. So what do the experts think?

 

A 2009 survey found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Now a new study has digged into this topic a little deeper and broader. As well as covering a larger number of climate scientists, they also researched how many papers each scientist published and how often their work was cited (Anderegg 2010).

 

How many published climate scientists think most of recent global warming was due to human activity? Between 97 to 98%

 

The results are strikingly consistent with Doran's earlier work. The overwhelming majority of climate experts think humans are causing climate change. Next, they dig a little deeper. They examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. What they find is the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

 

 

So, I will say this another way. Your response suggesting that no sample size was given implies that 1) you didn't actually read the sources I cited, or 2) you suffer from some sort of reading comprehension problem. It wasn't an attack. It was a genuine question that I think is understandable given the exchanges we've shared here and elsewhere, but I do apologize if you took offense.

 

 

 

Third picture: Again, no sample size given.

 

 

Again, please actually read what the image shows. As you can see, each color on the histogram cites a specific study, and within those studies the sample sizes are provided. In addition to the two I already cited above, the following are also studies you seem to have missed:

• Fransworth and Lichter 2011: http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/27/ijpor.edr033
• Bray and Von Storch 2008: http://ncseprojects.org/files/pub/polls/2010--Perspectives_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_&_Climate_Change_.pdf
• STATS / Harris Interactive 2007: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

This is part of the reason I asked a question about your reading comprehension abilities. You continue to miss plainly obvious things in the links I'm providing and the images I'm presenting.

 

 

 

Although this is from Nov. 2008 it is an interesting NASA article on ocean levels and the difficulties that are confounding the researchers.

One study from one guy five years ago demonstrated that one of the models he used to calculate thermal expansion in the oceans had an error. I'm missing how this in any way negates the fact that human contributions of GHGs is the dominant forcing agent causing global annual average temperatures to rise with such speed and magnitude.

 

 

 

If you seriously are going to hide behind a rational explanation...

I am not clear on what you're trying to say here so am unable to offer a response. Edited September 16, 2013 by iNow

[Unity+]

Seriously? Perhaps you should look on the bottom right corner of the picture itself.

 

Again, please actually read what the image shows. As you can see, each color on the histogram cites a specific study, and within those studies the sample sizes are provided.

One study from one guy five years ago demonstrated that one of the models he used to calculate thermal expansion in the oceans had an error. I'm missing how this in any way negates the fact that human contributions of GHGs is the dominant forcing agent causing global annual average temperatures to rise with such speed and magnitude.

I did read the bottom right corners, and only one had a source that didn't even provide the website link to it or a pdf for where it came from.

 

And stop using that emoticon. It makes your posts seem unprofessional.

 

Do humans have an impact in some way to climate change and the environment? Of course, we are a species like other species that have the same affect on the environment. Are we the main issue? No, we definitely are not.

[iNow]

Do humans have an impact in some way to climate change and the environment? Of course, we are a species like other species that have the same affect on the environment. Are we the main issue? No, we definitely are not.

Citation needed.

 

Also, please note that I was editing my response while you typed this reply. I ask that you please look again and reconsider your position.

 

 

EDIT to Add: It boggles my mind how people like you can continue to say that humans "definitely are not the main issue" causing the rapid and massive change in global average annual temperatures given all that we know. It's like you're here arguing that cigarettes don't cause cancer or that creationism is a valid hypothesis in biology class.

 

 

 

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/goals/img/climate2.jpg]

Edited September 16, 2013 by iNow

[Unity+]

Seriously? Perhaps you should look on the bottom right corner of the picture itself.

 

Source 1: Doran et al 2009 - http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

 

From the

Source 2: Anderegg et al 2010 - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

 

From the Skeptical Science site I like to cite for it's robustness and accuracy, we see the following summary of the Anderegg study:

 

So, I will say this another way. Your response suggesting that no sample size was given implies that 1) you didn't actually read the sources I cited, or 2) you suffer from some sort of reading comprehension problem. It wasn't an attack. It was a genuine question that I think is understandable given the exchanges we've shared here and elsewhere, but I do apologize if you took offense.

 

 

 

 

Again, please actually read what the image shows. As you can see, each color on the histogram cites a specific study, and within those studies the sample sizes are provided. In addition to the two I already cited above, the following are also studies you seem to have missed:

1. Fransworth and Lichter 2011: http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/27/ijpor.edr033
2. Bray and Von Storch 2008: http://ncseprojects.org/files/pub/polls/2010--Perspectives_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_&_Climate_Change_.pdf
3. STATS / Harris Interactive 2007: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

This is part of the reason I asked a question about your reading comprehension abilities. You continue to miss plainly obvious things in the links I'm providing and the images I'm presenting.

 

 

 

 

One study from one guy five years ago demonstrated that one of the models he used to calculate thermal expansion in the oceans had an error. I'm missing how this in any way negates the fact that human contributions of GHGs is the dominant forcing agent causing global annual average temperatures to rise with such speed and magnitude.

 

 

 

I am not clear on what you're trying to say here so am unable to offer a response.

Finally, some sources. Okay, I took a look at the sources. I am a skeptic in scientific field and it helps me discern bias from fact. You would agree that such skepticism is required(at least I hope so).

 

No, it was not an inability to read, but my laziness to look up the source from the pictures because I am not the one presenting the information, but it is you and it is expected that you layout all the sources of the data.

 

Also, source to my assertion:

 

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf

 

I am not denying that climate change exists. I am simply stating that the supposed evil human species is not the main cause of "global warming."

[iNow]

I am simply stating that the supposed evil human species is not the main cause of "global warming."

Nobody is calling humans evil, but our actions are pumping more than 30 gigatons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere each year and (inline with our understanding of physics and chemistry) that's having a massive effect on the climate. If we cannot even agree on that basic fact, then I see no point in continuing the discussion. We're too far apart. Edited September 16, 2013 by iNow

[arc]

One study from one guy five years ago demonstrated that one of the models he used to calculate thermal expansion in the oceans had an error. I'm missing how this in any way negates the fact that human contributions of GHGs is the dominant forcing agent causing global annual average temperatures to rise with such speed and magnitude.

 

You mean Josh Willis he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005.

 

or Takmeng Wong as in Takmeng Wong and his colleagues at NASA’s Langley Research Center.

 

or do you mean Sydney Levitus, the director of NOAA’s Ocean Climate Laboratory and his colleagues.

 

or did you mean Susan Wijffels of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) and other ocean scientists

 

but maybe it was a team of scientists led by Catia Domingues and John Church from Australia’s CSIRO (seen below), and Peter Gleckler, from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California

 

 

Umm. Wait, what was your point?

Nobody is calling humans evil, but our actions are pumping more than 30 gigatons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere each year and (inline with our understanding of physics and chemistry) that's having a massive effect on the climate. If we cannot even agree on that basic fact, then I see no point in continuing the discussion. We're too far apart.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter13/chapter13_01.htm

 

Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University

Robert H. Stewart, stewart@ocean.tamu.edu

All contents copyright © 2005 Robert H. Stewart,

All rights reserved

Updated on October 24, 2008

 

The oceans are the primary reservoir of readily available CO2, an important greenhouse gas. The oceans contain 40,000 GtC of dissolved, particulate, and living forms of carbon. The land contains 2,200 GtC, and the atmosphere contains only 750 GtC. Thus the oceans hold 50 times more carbon than the air. Furthermore, the amount of new carbon put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, 150 GtC, is less than the amount of carbon cycled through the marine ecosystem in five years. (1 GtC = 1 gigaton of carbon = 1012 kilograms of carbon.) Carbonate rocks such as limestone, the shells of marine animals, and coral are other, much larger, reservoirs. But this carbon is locked up. It cannot be easily exchanged with carbon in other reservoirs.

 

 

Carbonate rocks such as limestone, the shells of marine animals, and coral are other, much larger, reservoirs. But this carbon is locked up.

Locked up? On land yes, unless exposed to weathering. All of that in the sea floor sediments has been being fed into the convergent plate boundaries (trenches) since tectonics began. It is transported into the crust/mantle boundary, melted and then dissolved before returning in the seemingly endless cycle back out through the divergent plate boundaries that are the;

 

"world's largest continuous volcanic mountain range stretching 65,000 kilometers (40,400 mile) and occupies every ocean in the world including the Arctic Ocean sea floor. These volcanic structures rise to more than 3657 meters (12,000 ft.) high and are 1931 kilometers (1,200 miles) wide. While the average ocean crust depth is 8km (5 miles thick.) 1/5 as thick as the continents crust, it is just a mere 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.2 mi), at the point where the sea floor is continually formed by magma flowing into the fissure created by the opposing movement of the ocean crust. This process changes the ocean's volumetric heat capacity and through it the atmospheric thermal content."

 

And yes, if the crust/mantle thermal content was increased by strain energy the dissolved carbon content venting into the ocean would increase proportionately. Why wouldn't it?

 

Interesting, another batch prediction of observations - increased ocean thermal content, acidfication and carbon to be transported by the Global Ocean Conveyor to the surface and atmosphere.

 

And the cause of that unaccounted 50% increase in ocean expansion. Man, this model kicks butt!

Edited September 16, 2013 by arc

[Unity+]

Nobody is calling humans evil, but our actions are pumping more than 30 gigatons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere each year and (inline with our understanding of physics and chemistry) that's having a massive effect on the climate. If we cannot even agree on that basic fact, then I see no point in continuing the discussion. We're too far apart.

Which piece of information? The fact that Carbon Monoxide is being released or the claim that humans have a massive impact on our climate?

[iNow]

And the cause of that unaccounted 50% increase in ocean expansion. Man, this model kicks butt!

I'll say again. I'm missing how this in any way negates the fact that human contributions of GHGs is the dominant forcing agent causing global annual average temperatures to rise with such speed and magnitude.

Which piece of information? The fact that Carbon Monoxide is being released or the claim that humans have a massive impact on our climate?

The latter.

[arc]

I'll say again. I'm missing how this in any way negates the fact that human contributions of GHGs is the dominant forcing agent causing global annual average temperatures to rise with such speed and magnitude.

 

That's because you don't do your school work and you will flunk the test coming up on the new model of planetary thermal dynamics.

[iNow]

That's because you don't do your school work and you will flunk the test coming up on the new model of planetary thermal dynamics.

I'm not in school. I'm not being tested, and you're in no position of authority over me. Now, perhaps you could please stop evading the central point.

 

How are any of your comments... some relating to a study from 7 years ago miscalculating thermal expansion in the oceans and others relating to the fact that seismic activity has not changed in such a way as to explain either the magnitude nor the pace of recent warming.... How do those comments in any way negate the fact that human contributions of GHGs is the dominant forcing agent causing global annual average temperatures to rise with such speed and magnitude?

[arc]

I'm not in school.

 

In a way, yes you are.

 

I'm not being tested

 

 

Again, in a way you are.

 

 

and you're in no position of authority over me.

 

As long as you refuse to learn about this model, I am.

[iNow]

Right. Now, as for that question you keep evading... How does this in any way negate the fact that human contributions of GHGs is the dominant forcing agent causing global annual average temperatures to rise with such speed and magnitude?

[arc]

As you have been told already the current model is incorrect, so that means everything you interpret with it is incorrect.

Why should it's bad observations lead to good predictions? It doesn't, and never will. You have yet to deal with this material below. Can you with your model provide predictions of this quality.

EDIT to Add: It boggles my mind how people like you can continue to say that humans "definitely are not the main issue" causing the rapid and massive change in global average annual temperatures given all that we know.

 

Well, does your model make predictions of observations for any of these.

 

My model can accurately predict.

The plaination that occurs before mountain ranges form

The formation of mountain ranges - both continental margin and the difficult to understand untill now continental interior

The formation of divergent plate boundaries

The formation of convergent plate boundaries

The variation in ridge infill among the worlds divergent plate boundaries

The basin and range area in the SW of N. America

Mariana Trench and why it is the deepest in the world

Continental break-up

Mid-ocean ridge offset faulting.

Island chains such as the Hawaiians and the Emperor sea mounts

Formation of island arcs

Why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant

Increased ocean thermal content

Acidfication of the ocean

Carbon transported by the Global Ocean Conveyor to the surface and atmosphere.

The cause of that unaccounted 50% increase in ocean expansion.

Can it show CLEAR cause and effect like this below;

http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html

Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times.

The model simply correlates the magnetic field variability shown above and the production of heat at the crust/mantle boundary from strain energy. As the magnetic field strengthens the mantle is displaced by the increase in amplitude of the molten iron of the outer core. Current can only be created by magnetic fields, and magnetic fields can only create current. If one changes in strength the other will follow. As the outer cores molten iron increases in temperature from increased ampacity the liquid iron will expand.

This is the mechanism that displaces the mantle. The heat that is responsible for climate variation is produce as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area.

This part is really important to note. This heat is not migrating from the core, which would take considerable time. This thermal content is produced at the crust mantle boundary. The mantle makes up 85% of the Earth's mass, its thickness requires its outer surface to expand in proportion to its distance from the core creating tremendous strain in very small amounts of displacement. This mechanism connects the strain energy response to the magnetic field variability in almost synchronized timing.

This is why graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such medieval warm period and the little ice age.

Image below courtesy of USGS
http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf

Image below modified by this author.

As you can see this is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, again this is not temperature shown here it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating magnetic field strength. (the 14C content is inverted) It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, it's content is inverted compared to the currently observed and debated temperature rise. An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux. The Sun's varying magnetic field is the only mechanism controlling 14C content and timing.

Now, for me to suggest there is a correlation between the solar magnetic field strength and the current abnormal temperature increase that you have pointed out;

"that could account for the warming trend we're seeing and that is somehow different than shifts that have taken place through the last several thousand years?"

I will have to show evidence of extraordinarily unusual magnetic field strength that will correlate the 14C content in the graph with the atmospheric warming since The Little Ice Age.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years

Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.

S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4

1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

The researchers note the unlikely possibility that it is solar radiation related, but because of the lack of evidence of a solar magnetic causation they make no connection to climate change.

This is what this model can deliver in accurate prediction of observations. The historic climate forcing seen in 14C tree ring samples shown earlier (and in even greater detail in the model) provide an answer to the variation through the geologic records of the past climate.

And I have even more than these shown. They are held in reserve.

So, can your current standard model give results like this. If it can then show them.

You and your model fail in comparison unless you can.

Edited September 17, 2013 by arc

[iNow]

Okay. Never mind. Like I said, given how profoundly you claim to have debunked our existing knowledge in climate science, I look forward to seeing your paper accepted by a respected peer reviewed source quite soon and wish you great enjoyment at the Nobel Prize ceremony that is sure to celebrate your contribution shortly thereafter.

If you feel like you've won some victory, then good on ya. I'm not myself a climate scientist. I've not personally created any models. I'm not sure why you keep calling them "my" models, and why you have chosen to make your posts so full of personal barbs and emotive digs.

 

I'm just a guy who happens to agree with 98% of the planets climate scientists about the actual cause of the changes we're seeing. I've supported the position I've put forth. I still don't see where you've shown a spike in geological activity that corresponds to either the magnitude nor the rapidity of the rise in global average annual temperatures we're experiencing.

[arc]

Okay. Never mind. Like I said, given how profoundly you claim to have debunked our existing knowledge in climate science, I look forward to seeing your paper accepted by a respected peer reviewed source quite soon and wish you great enjoyment at the Nobel Prize ceremony that is sure to celebrate your contribution shortly thereafter.

 

I don't know where you got all that baggage. I have put it on line for free so everyone can read it for free. That is all I ever wanted. I am quite content to watch it filter slowly into every aspect of earth science. So every time you turn around there I am.

Okay. Never mind. Like I said, given how profoundly you claim to have debunked our existing knowledge in climate science, I look forward to seeing your paper accepted by a respected peer reviewed source quite soon and wish you great enjoyment at the Nobel Prize ceremony that is sure to celebrate your contribution shortly thereafter.

If you feel like you've won some victory, then good on ya. I'm not myself a climate scientist. I've not personally created any models. I'm not sure why you keep calling them "my" models, and why you have chosen to make your posts so full of personal barbs and emotive digs.

 

I'm just a guy who happens to agree with 98% of the planets climate scientists about the actual cause of the changes we're seeing. I've supported the position I've put forth. I still don't see where you've shown a spike in geological activity that corresponds to either the magnitude nor the rapidity of the rise in global average annual temperatures we're experiencing.

 

It's your model because you are the one defending it by not admitting that it may be false by way of new evidence. Have you noticed no one has joined you.

 

I am sorry that I appear harsh, but please reread the beginning and compare my demeanor to yours. I have read many of your old posts in climate sciences and elsewhere, you are rather harsh to those who you debate. I have no ill feelings towards you, I think we can respect each others position and move on.

Edited September 17, 2013 by arc

[iNow]

I don't respect your position, though. I think you're completely misguided and bordering on crackpot.

[arc]

I don't respect your position, though. I think you're completely misguided and bordering on crackpot.

 

I knew the old you would come back!

[iNow]

It's your model because you are the one defending it by not admitting that it may be false by way of new evidence.

I stipulate that it may be false. That is always a possibility. There is always a chance that any model or any understanding of any topic could be overturned in the face of new evidence, and I have never argued the contrary.

 

However, I do find the possibility vanishingly small that we are wrong about the conclusion that human activity is currently the primary driver of the both the magnitude and the quickness with which our climate is changing. The data in support of the position that human contributions of greenhouse gases are the primary forcing agent of our increasing global average annual temperatures is so overwhelming and consistent that claims that it "may be false," while true, are so improbable as to be safely discarded.

 

Yes, I trust the conclusion of decades of research and thousands of studies and extreme support of that position by the people most knowledgeable in the field, and your claim that we're getting warmer due to seismic activity has failed to convince me that this trust is misplaced.

 

Like I said, though, if you feel you're on to something then by all means go run with it. Why are you wasting time in an online forum posting in a Speculations section and casting personal barbs and aspersions at me as if you're some petty internet troll or pubescent child?

Edited September 17, 2013 by iNow

[arc]

I stipulate that it may be false. That is always a possibility. There is always a chance that any model or any understanding of any topic could be overturned in the face of new evidence, and I have never argued the contrary.

 

However, I do find the possibility vanishingly small that we are wrong about the conclusion that human activity is currently the primary driver of the both the magnitude and the quickness with which our climate is changing. The data in support of the position that human contributions of greenhouse gases are the primary forcing agent of our increasing global average annual temperatures is so overwhelming and consistent that claims that it "may be false," while true, are so improbable as to be safely discarded.

 

Yes, I trust the conclusion of decades of research and thousands of studies and extreme support of that position by the people most knowledgeable in the field, and your claim that we're getting warmer due to seismic activity has failed to convince me that this trust is misplaced.

 

Like I said, though, if you feel you're on to something then by all means go run with it. Why are you wasting time in an online forum posting in a Speculations section and casting personal barbs and aspersions at me as if you're some petty internet troll or pubescent child?

 

 

 

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

 

 

iNow, this is what everyone should be worried about. Look at the Little Ice Age and the sentence above. The 14C record shows we have an extremely high probability that the solar magnetic activity that heats Earth's outer core is not going to stay high for long. Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level

 

This interglacial we are enjoying is about to end as the divergent plates start to reduce in their amount of divergent movement. We will record smaller yearly amounts of infill. This will indicate the outer core's temperature has lowered and is not producing strain energy at the crust/mantle boundaries. The oceans will cool quickly and we may have a fast decent into a short cold period.

 

How cold?

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html

 

 

The Younger Dryas is the 800 pound gorilla of the climate warming and cooling record since the end of the last glacial period. Here's the facts; brief (1,300 ± 70 years) period of glacial conditions and drought. Mean annual temperature in the U.K. dropped to approximately 5 °C (41 °F) The rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere was sudden and brief, these were rapid energy fluxes on what looks like 1,470 year periodicities.

 

 

Look at those drop offs, brief (1,300 ± 70 years) period of glacial conditions and drought. That is past climate history that more than hints at our future.

[KrisMiss]

 

That's because you don't do your school work and you will flunk the test coming up on the new model of planetary thermal dynamics.

I agree, i think humans just don't hold a candle at all to the power of the planet itself. Like i said before, it think it is arrogance that makes people believe that they really make much of an impact. We don't like the idea that we are really so insignificant when it comes to our planet...i think it scares us.

[Phi for All]

I agree, i think humans just don't hold a candle at all to the power of the planet itself. Like i said before, it think it is arrogance that makes people believe that they really make much of an impact. We don't like the idea that we are really so insignificant when it comes to our planet...i think it scares us.

 

That's moving the goalposts AND a strawman. It's never really been about impacting the planet as an object, has it? It's about impacting our environment. We DO have a demonstrable, quantifiable impact on our own environment, and while the planet will certainly continue as a planet, it could continue without us. Especially if we're so arrogant as to think we can muck it up as much as we please.

[KrisMiss]

 

That's moving the goalposts AND a strawman. It's never really been about impacting the planet as an object, has it? It's about impacting our environment. We DO have a demonstrable, quantifiable impact on our own environment, and while the planet will certainly continue as a planet, it could continue without us. Especially if we're so arrogant as to think we can muck it up as much as we please.

I absolutely agree! As I said in my earlier post, we are only hurting ourselves. The planet will take care of itself.

[iNow]

But that position is separate and seemingly contradictory to this one you previously espoused:

 

think it is arrogance that makes people believe that they really make much of an impact.

[arc]

 

That's moving the goalposts AND a strawman. It's never really been about impacting the planet as an object, has it? It's about impacting our environment. We DO have a demonstrable, quantifiable impact on our own environment, and while the planet will certainly continue as a planet, it could continue without us. Especially if we're so arrogant as to think we can muck it up as much as we please.

 

iNow

Page 1

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:24 PM

While plate movements can impact climate, their movements haven't shifted proportional to the changes we're seeing in global average annual temperatures. Specifically, the plate movements result in increased earthquakes and volcanism, both of which have, in fact, been accounted for by climate scientists.

 

Further, much of what we're seeing right now with plate movements appear to be influenced by the changing climate, not the other way around.

 

http://www.cosmosmag...-earths-plates/

Moving goal posts?

I think we are going to see a lot of goal post movement on the anthropological side of this, which should be expected.

 

This is from the site that iNow posted earlier

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/monsoons-are-spinning-earths-plates/

The Australian-led team of researchers from France and Germany found that the strengthening Indian monsoon had accelerated movement of the Indian plate over the past 10 million years by a factor of about 20%, publishing their findings in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters journal.

 

Effects of long-term climate change

“The 100km-thick outer shell of Earth, the lithosphere, is divided into pieces called tectonic plates. Plates move in different directions at speeds in the order of centimetres per year, comparable to the speed of fingernail growth in humans.

 

So how much energy is in an atmospheric storm system like a monsoon compared to the mass of the 100 km thick Indian continental plate, which by the way is surrounded on all sides by other plates and is even embedded to its north into the Himalayan Range.

 

"the strengthening Indian monsoon had accelerated movement of the Indian plate over the past 10 million years"

 

That 10 million year ago statement is something I already posted about.

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov...c/himalaya.html

The collision of India into Asia 50 million years ago caused the Indian and Eurasian Plates to crumple up along the collision zone. After the collision, the slow continuous convergence of these two plates over millions of years pushed up the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to their present heights. Most of this growth occurred during the past 10 million years. The Himalayas, towering as high as 8,854 m above sea level, form the highest continental mountains in the world. Moreover, the neighboring Tibetan Plateau, at an average elevation of about 4,600 m, is higher than all the peaks in the Alps except for Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa, and is well above the summits of most mountains in the United States. . . . The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year -- a growth rate of 10 km in a million years! If that is so, why aren't the Himalayas even higher? Scientists believe that the Eurasian Plate may now be stretching out rather than thrusting up, and such stretching would result in some subsidence due to gravity.

 

According to my model, the Earth's magnetic field had moved into a period of lower energy. The outer core had cooled and contracted, as it moved the mantle followed in tandem initiating the compression in the crust by way of the recent ridge infill, this raised the Himalayan range as the gravitational potential energy continued to build in the entire plate matrix.

 

This process caused extreme amounts of compression to build in the Indian Continental plate, the mass of the surrounding and massively larger continental plates of Antarctica, Africa, Pacific and Eurasian were being gradually and increasingly converted into the gravitational potential energy as the outer core cooled. Energy that as kinetic raised the Himalayan range through compression.

 

I would expect the Indian continental plate to gradually and increasingly give off an appreciable amount of the compressional energy as heat during this period, even though overall the mantle's strain energy into the ocean has decreased. And I would expect to see that thermal energy rise to become the mentioned monsoons above it, growing gradually and increasingly stronger over time as the compression grew.

 

It makes for a more believable mechanism in this explanation than it does as a warming climate being the driver of tectonic plates during the Himalayan uplift.

 

Old model vs new, is there any comparison?

Edited September 20, 2013 by arc