Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Possibly the answer of why the earth is getting old

  1. #1 Possibly the answer of why the earth is getting old 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    6
    I hypothesize that the earth is getting hotter through natural events. If you think about it we only supply a little bit of the pollution that earth has in all. I think that i have read b4 that nature more gasses than we do. If you think about an ice age happens every so often so what if this is the opposite end of the ice age and the earth is warming up to a certain point then the earth will eventually come to a cooler spot.

    Idk if there is evidence that proves that this is wrong. So if you have evidence that proves this wrong please make a reply


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by 17miwoosencraft View Post
    Idk if there is evidence that proves that this is wrong. So if you have evidence that proves this wrong please make a reply

    It is up to you to provide the necessary evidence to support your hypothesis.
    The onus (burden of proof) is on you.


    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    6
    this is true but who says other people cant help
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    we are in an interglacial within an ice age
    some interglacials have been warmer

    do you have anything new to add to this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by 17miwoosencraft View Post
    Idk if there is evidence that proves that this is wrong.
    There is. Lots. You should go an learn about it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    There is. Lots. You should go an learn about it.
    There is a fair amount of literature on both.

    As of right now the consensus is that the earth is becoming warmer due to both natural and man-made causes.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

    C
    limatologists would know better than myself and if I remember correctly we have a meteorologist around here someplace, and he could probably give better detail, but as I understand it we go through different cycles every 100,000 years. We'll have an ice-age than a long-period of incremental temperature increases followed by another ice age. With smaller ones happening in between.

    NASA seems to think there's evidence for naturally occurring climate changes as well. Study Finds Ancient Warming Greened Antarctica - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    The difference now is the increase in greenhouse gases attributed to our nasty ways!


    Cheers!
    [Analyst/Engineer/Independent]

    "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by 17miwoosencraft View Post
    I hypothesize that the earth is getting hotter
    What does this have to do with the thread title (Earth getting OLD)?

    By the way, I hypothesise that the Earth is getting old because it was formed a long time ago and is still extant.
    That's the sort wacky thing that just happens.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If you want to go down that glacial - interglacial natural cycles route, remember that we're supposed to be on a fairly steady path towards the next glaciation. Given the current Milankovitch cycles criteria - eccentricity, axial tilt and precession - we should be seeing a stable but gradual tendency to cooler temperatures. Not a spike in warmer temperatures.

    Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If you really want to get a handle on climate science and but you really want to check out some 'cyclic' ideas of your own, try numbers 32 and 56 on the list at Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says and go from there.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If you want to go down that glacial - interglacial natural cycles route, remember that we're supposed to be on a fairly steady path towards the next glaciation. Given the current Milankovitch cycles criteria - eccentricity, axial tilt and precession - we should be seeing a stable but gradual tendency to cooler temperatures. Not a spike in warmer temperatures.

    Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If you really want to get a handle on climate science and but you really want to check out some 'cyclic' ideas of your own, try numbers 32 and 56 on the list at Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says and go from there.
    So, contrary to Eighty88's assertion that the consensus is that the Earth is warming from natural and anthropic causes, science shows that natural causes are not currently contributing to warming.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Wee ee eelll. The IPCC conclusions are arrived at a) by consensus and then b) only on scientific papers published up until the cut-off date.

    So the fact that there is discussion around the idea that current warming attributions can be analysed in other ways would have needed several published and widely accepted papers and all the countries involved to agree on that. And they have enough problems getting extremely reluctant agreement from some countries already. Science is conservative in the first place and then you have to get the non-scientists on board as well.

    I expect that 10 or so years from now there'll be a retrospective recalculation that recent atmospheric warming until now could be attributed say, for example.

    + 120% anthropogenic releases of ghgs

    offset by some versions of

    - 10% heat transfer to the deeper ocean
    - 5 to 8% anthropogenic releases of aerosols
    - 2 - 5% natural and anthropogenic lotsa things.

    Basically, I'm in the camp that says we've been kidding ourselves if we think that the great brown cloud of Asian emissions hasn't been suppressing a whole lot of warming that we should have expected if China and India's factories and power generating facilities had been operating on the same clean air rules as Europe and North America have done these last 20 years. We're in for a couple of nasty shocks when the next big el Ninos come roaring out of the Pacific Ocean. And we're in for a chronic, century long, omg-what-have-we-done as all of us, including Asia, move to cleaner technologies and leave the increased concentration of non-condensing, long-lived gases free rein wholly unshielded by those aerosols.

    I'm also an optimist. I'm pretty sure that once we see clearly "what we've done" we'll move on to some fairly simple, but very large scale, processes for absorbing CO2 directly from the atmosphere as well as controlling and then eliminating all but a remnant of current emissions. But we won't get any substantial slowing down of warming, let alone sea level rise, for several decades after we get started - just like releasing CO2 really. (Several metres of sea level rise is pretty well baked in. But if we get it right we can avoid the very worst possibilities.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    So, contrary to Eighty88's assertion that the consensus is that the Earth is warming from natural and anthropic causes, science shows that natural causes are not currently contributing to warming.
    Hey Giant,

    That is incorrect.

    Did you look at either article?

    Check out this one.
    Climate Change: Page not found (404)otice towards the end they discuss solar radiance which has historically played a role. Right now not so much.

    I want Miwoosencraft to have a better understanding of global warming whether it be both now or past.

    That said, you should also check out this link (again if you haven't yet) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

    A
    nd read through Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia this link (posted earlier) for a better and more comprehensive understanding.


    Cheers!
    [Analyst/Engineer/Independent]

    "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If you want to push a point, it's worth noting that there haven't been any large eruptions of volcanoes in the tropics since Pinatubo. That's certainly a factor affecting the last 20 years. But I can't see it as a biggie if you look at how quickly the trend line in atmospheric temperature went back on its previous course after Pinatubo. A dip for 2 or 3 years would certainly affect the decadal average temperature - but given the decadal averages shown in the IPCC report, I doubt there'd be much change in the way things are going.


    Figure 1 The measured global temperature curve from several data sets.
    Top: annual values.
    ​​Bottom: averaged values ​​over a decade.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Eighty, you missed the part of Giant's comments.

    "..... natural causes are not currently contributing to warming."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ok
    bottom line it for me
    is anthropogenic climate forcing enough to take us out of this current ice age
    or
    is it just a respite and higher level during this interglacial?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    ntly contributing to warming.
    Hey Giant,

    That is incorrect.

    Did you look at either article?

    Check out this one.
    [/QUOTE]
    Climate Change: Causes
    Repaired link for the above members post (this does not mean I endorse his ideas, but was a courtesy.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    ok
    bottom line it for me
    is anthropogenic climate forcing enough to take us out of this current ice age
    or
    is it just a respite and higher level during this interglacial?
    That really depends on the time scale of ice ages you are referring to. If you mean the very long ice age at this point in the Quaternary, than it will hardly be a blip compared to the effects of different continent configurations and ocean circulations.

    If you mean the much shorter iceages such as the one that ended about 12,000 BP, than certainly anthropomorphic green houses will have a significant effect, at best stalling and probably being the high point of the current interglacial for the next few thousand years even if we stopped pumping fossil fuels green house gases. But who knows how much more we'll add to the atmosphere, we still have huge reserves of coal to burn..and once that runs out we could switch to methyl hydrates. And by then we might have the power to do wide scale geologic changes or change the insolation from the sun with orbital structures. So....we go with what we reasonably know. The limits of my own interest start to fade at about the point of my great grand children...who'd I like to think don't look back our our current civilization with revulsion for being amoral about the fate of the biosphere and creating avoidable hardships for future generations.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    @Eighty88;
    That would be GiantEvil please. Don't forget the Evil.
    Yea, umm... you should check out post #13
    My point is, and remains, that although solar and orbital forcing may be primary natural climate drivers, currently they are in their cooling cycles. Not their warming cycles.
    Regardless of what cycle they might currently be in, it is anthropogenic causes which are the significant contributor to current historically unprecedented warming.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Ice age?

    Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1358.html

    Last sentence of abstract ...
    Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO
    2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5ppmv.


    Checking out peat lands for clues ...... Carbon dioxide: Our salvation from a future ice age?

    Some technical stuff about ice ages / deglaciation RealClimate: Unlocking the secrets to ending an Ice Age

    I love that bit about "if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5 ppmv." We're now blasting straight past 400ppmv.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    I don't know much about this stuff, but I understand that the ocean is a major carbon sink and it is nearly full. If less CO2 is being sequestered in the ocean, then wouldn't that cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 rates even with a flat CO2 creation rate?

    And what about plant respiration. Can we offset some atmospheric CO2 by planting more green stuff? The trees don't get full (like the ocean) and stop sequestering CO2 at some point do they?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    And what about plant respiration. Can we offset some atmospheric CO2 by planting more green stuff? The trees don't get full (like the ocean) and stop sequestering CO2 at some point do they?
    It's more complicated than that. Individual plants cannot benefit from additional CO2 unless deficient CO2 is the single factor inhibiting normal growth. Recent reports are that trees are not the best absorbers of carbon. Apparently seaweeds and kelp forests are the next big thing in sequestration by growing stuff. Unfortunately, seaweed and kelp are being dragged, scraped and polluted out of existence at much the same rate as forests on land.

    As for growing things vigorously to absorb carbon. The big issue here is the climatic effects of the current and expected future concentrations of CO2. We can't move massive forests a few degrees of latitude to where they might now grow better than they currently are with the changing climate in their historic locations. Just look at how the forests of the Rockies are simply disappearing under the onslaught of beetles which are no longer controlled by annual kill off in cold winters - it no longer gets cold enough to stop them reproducing let alone to kill them. And there's not very much land north to move them to even if we could.

    Higher temperatures inhibit growth for all kinds of trees, especially their capacity to make best use of soil nutrients which are the basis for the photosynthetic activity. And then we get to droughts, fires and floods. Not helpful to plant growth.

    If less CO2 is being sequestered in the ocean, then wouldn't that cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 rates even with a flat CO2 creation rate?
    Yup. If we stop all fossil and agricultural emissions everywhere tomorrow, current concentrations will at least persist and may occasionally increase for varying periods - for centuries. That will be in large part because of the oceans. The moment atmospheric concentrations decrease that will change the balance between ocean and air and there will be some outgassing. And that will go on for quite a while. Until and unless we do something - something big - to get concentrations (not just emissions) down to more reasonable, natural levels.

    If we do keep on emitting, the capacity of the oceans to take up CO2 will steadily decrease. So, long before we get to any outgassing scenario (because of warming waters) the stuff we're emitting will have fewer and fewer opportunities for absorption.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Eighty, you missed the part of Giant's comments.

    "..... natural causes are not currently contributing to warming."
    Yes I missed that initially! My bad habit of skimming sentences rather than reading!



    Cheers!
    [Analyst/Engineer/Independent]

    "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 21st, 2013, 07:17 PM
  2. Need a team to help or possibly just one (coding)
    By Fmp2491 in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2011, 11:53 AM
  3. Help on possibly forged signature
    By Armed Lamb in forum Criminology and Forensic Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 14th, 2010, 04:18 PM
  4. Possibly idiotic question about relativity
    By War Arrow in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 10th, 2008, 11:41 AM
  5. over 60(or possibly 59 and 13 months old.
    By maddog67 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 25th, 2008, 10:34 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •