Interesting climate change study

It's due to the the increase in the number of Somalian pirates.

while it is true that the globe has warmed and cooled in it's life. It is the rate of heating that is worrisome right now. Things appear to be warming much faster than they should be. Some cite that the earth should be in a cooling period right now

We need another snowball earth!

In reply to Beer Baron:

From what I've read, the forest industry is actually helpful in reducing CO2.

Apparently, young trees, up to about 25 years old grow quickly and soak up more CO2 than older trees do.

Planting new trees helps to take up CO2 in the atmosphere faster.

Go figure, real christmas trees are good for the planet.

Shawn

Anti-stance wrote: I was under the impression that we are better off tree wise than we were 100 years ago. I have no data to back that up, that was just what I had been led to believe.

I have read that also.

I also believe they have discovered the oceans are the primary CO2 converter. Algae or some sort of thing like that. (a bit of a moving target eh?)

Trans_Maro wrote: In reply to Beer Baron: From what I've read, the forest industry is actually helpful in reducing CO2. Apparently, young trees, up to about 25 years old grow quickly and soak up more CO2 than older trees do. Planting new trees helps to take up CO2 in the atmosphere faster. Go figure, real christmas trees are good for the planet. Shawn

I can believe that. Look how fast a tree grows in it's first decade or so of life.

You guys should get with the times. Its not called global warming anymore. Its called climate change. That way we are all bad people regardless of which way the temperature goes.

That graph is pretty misleading, that is the tip of the iceberg, make that very misleading. I would guess that study is funded by big oil or some other company that wants to stop the electric car from going to the masses or some other malarkey.

We as a people that don't really care that much are messing up our world, I don't understand how anyone doesn't see that.

jere wrote: That graph is pretty misleading, that is the tip of the iceberg, make that very misleading. I would guess that study is funded by big oil or some other company that wants to stop the electric car from going to the masses or some other malarkey. We as a people that don't really care that much are messing up our world, I don't understand how anyone doesn't see that.

That is the trouble with fanatics. They think that their extremely one sided view is obviously the correct one and everyone else is wrong.

After the 70's scare, I just tend to believe the opposite of whatever Time Magazine has on the cover of their issues.

mad_machine wrote:  Some cite that the earth should be in a cooling period right now

Who thinks that? We were in a warming world from the last mini ice age 1300 years ago that was delayed by the 1800's mount tambora eruption.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/ground-breaking-paper-refutes-the-greenhouse-gas-theory/

Beer Baron wrote:

wbjones wrote: a climatologist told me I was wrong ... but the theory still makes sense to me (doesn't mean it's accurate, just that it makes sense to me) as the climate warms, and the Arctic ice pack melts, the cold water (from the melting ice) tends to flow south. as it reaches the southern tip of Florida it gets caught up in the gulf stream, cooling the gulf stream as it travels north east towards England and the North Sea. this would in turn slowly chill England and the surrounding areas. eventually it would chill the area enough that ice would start to reform .. viola ... back to where we were ... I don't remember why he said I was wrong ...but it still makes sense I imagine someone on here can come up with whatever is wrong with my "theory"

Because energy is only added to the system. The water going north is still above freezing. That is like saying that if you have a big block of ice in a tub of water and you melt the ice some with a hair dryer, you can refreaze it just by stirring the tub.

understand that ... but the water going north is still MUCH colder than it used to be .... and the arctic area is still cold (by the very nature of it's location), so if the ambient temp is brought down (even more) by the cooler water entering the area, shouldn't the naturally colder temps of the arctic be affected (over time) and slowly reverse the warming trend ... which in turn would slowly go the other way (like we have now)

then add to this natural cycle the greenhouse gasses that we're shoving into the atmosphere and it would seem to speed up the process ... maybe even knock it out of sync ?

so this is why my theory still makes "sense" to my admittedly more engineering type of brain than scientific type of brain

bearmtnmartin wrote: You guys should get with the times. Its not called global warming anymore. Its called climate change. That way we are all bad people regardless of which way the temperature goes.

You do realize they are both accurate based on the theory right?

Global Warming refers to the global average temperature increase which of course introduces more energy into the system. More energy in the system will tend to create more extreme weather, which may be warmer or colder depending, even though the overall average is higher.

fifty wrote:

bgkast wrote: In reply to aircooled: This. Correlation does not equal causation.

I think you mean "association does not equal causation". Because correlation does :)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

wbjones wrote: understand that ... but the water going north is still MUCH colder than it used to be .... and the arctic area is still cold (by the very nature of it's location), so if the ambient temp is brought down (even more) by the cooler water entering the area, shouldn't the naturally colder temps of the arctic be affected (over time) and slowly reverse the warming trend ... which in turn would slowly go the other way (like we have now) then add to this natural cycle the greenhouse gasses that we're shoving into the atmosphere and it would seem to speed up the process ... maybe even knock it out of sync ?

It might have a small mitigating factor, but could not replenish the cooling effect. You're trying to cool something using itself. To use a car analogy: regenerative braking on a hybrid will extend how long it takes to drain a battery, but will never fully replenish it.

Trans_Maro wrote: In reply to Beer Baron: From what I've read, the forest industry is actually helpful in reducing CO2. Apparently, young trees, up to about 25 years old grow quickly and soak up more CO2 than older trees do. Planting new trees helps to take up CO2 in the atmosphere faster. Go figure, real christmas trees are good for the planet. Shawn

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, trees suck at absorbing co2. Grass is where its at (surface area up in her!)

Beer Baron wrote:

wbjones wrote: understand that ... but the water going north is still MUCH colder than it used to be .... and the arctic area is still cold (by the very nature of it's location), so if the ambient temp is brought down (even more) by the cooler water entering the area, shouldn't the naturally colder temps of the arctic be affected (over time) and slowly reverse the warming trend ... which in turn would slowly go the other way (like we have now) then add to this natural cycle the greenhouse gasses that we're shoving into the atmosphere and it would seem to speed up the process ... maybe even knock it out of sync ?

It might have a small mitigating factor, but could not replenish the cooling effect. You're trying to cool something using itself. To use a car analogy: regenerative braking on a hybrid will extend how long it takes to drain a battery, but will never fully replenish it.

yeah ... got that ... guess I (in my ignorance) was counting on the "fact" that the arctic would use the cooler water coming north to aid it's normal cycle of winter cold ... and slowly reverse the warming trend that then would reverse that trend and start the warming again ... etc... etc ...

usually, if something makes that much sense to me, then there has to be a flaw in my thinking

wbjones wrote: yeah ... got that ... guess I (in my ignorance) was counting on the "fact" that the arctic would use the cooler water coming north to aid it's normal cycle of winter cold ... and slowly reverse the warming trend that then would reverse that trend and start the warming again ... etc... etc ... usually, if something makes that much sense to me, then there has to be a flaw in my thinking

That colder water is still going to be above freezing.

Jones you are thinking 100% effiency. You have to remember that even on the best of times, the lower edges of the ice sheet are melting all the time anyway. As the earth warms and the ice melts faster, it -will- have a slight cooling effect further south, but it will still return north warmer than when it left.

This is one of the reasons we had such a cool spring this year.

Let's say that the water in the arctic is 35 degrees F. Water flowing in from the south is 36 degrees. All this does is raise the temperature of the arctic water. One degree doesn't sound like a lot, but changing the temperature of millions of gallons of water by one degree certainly is.

ok ... I'm really not trying to argue (it just seems like it ) and I realize the water moving north is still above freezing ... but I guess I was thinking (again lets take that statement with a grain of salt LOL ) that the natural winter time cold would be able to freeze the "cooler" water a bit easier than the "warmer" water of the past umpteen thousands of yrs .... which to me is ONE of the reasons for the cyclical ups and downs of our climate (really I understand that there are many other reasons, this just being one of them)

and we've beaten my dead horse to death here, so I'm just going to sit back and try to learn as others come up with more ideas for why climate change happens

Well, earth has spent time as a snowball and as a place with no ice at all. Blame grass for changing the climate.

I absolutely agree with the idea that we should work towards a cleaner environment. Only planet we've got, let's take care of it, and all taht. Recycling, nuclear vs. coal power, and other things that have a pretty good knowledge base already are pretty known to be awesome ideas.

I disagree that we need to upend the entire global economy based on new data that trickles in every 5 minutes:

"The earth is heating due to cars and the amount of fuel burned! BAN IT ALL!"

What's that? The earth is cooling? Oh...well...

"The earth is cooling due to C02 levels fluctuating due to industry! BAN THEM ALL!!!!"

It's alarmist, and ridiculous. We don't have enough data yet to know what we're talking about. The earth has gone through these trends for millenia, and trying to make accurate guesses about what is and isn't normal changes based on the last 100-200 years is like trying to get an accurate horsepower number from a dyno .02 seconds after turning the key on.

And if I'm wrong and mankind is causing drastic global climate change which kills us all, people on the other side of the argument have my full permission to say, "I told you so" at that point.

In reply to Flynlow:

Couldn't have said it better myself.