Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Unexpected Earth Temperature Record Set-plus

Unexpected Earth Temperature Record Set-plus an interesting Earth warming theory posted by Kate

Not quite what you expected, the unexpected.
And I bet it cost multi-thousands of $'s for a fraction of a second.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060313.html

The other Earth Warming theory (Russian), put up by Kate on our Front Page
"The Tunguska Event"

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/tunguska.shtml

The Russian scientist's theory is hogwash. Could it be a contributing factor? Absolutely! Can it explain the fact that the warming trne started in the 1800s?

Impossible.

I think the crux of his theory is that warming periods coincide with natural events such as Tunguska. As such, Shaidurov's re-analysis of yearly mean temperature changes over the last 140 years (conveniently) show that warming actually began around 1906-1908, after a period of cooling. Perhaps he'd explain the cooling as a drop off from another previous "phenomenon of cosmic scale."

His first hypothesis states that: "The Tungus meteorite considerably changed the thermo-
protective properties of the Earth?s atmosphere and turned out to be one of the agencies which launched global warming."

Here is Shaidurov's paper: Atmospheric hypotheses? of Earth?s global warming

There are people on the fringes of sentience that have been trying to leverage whatever is unexplained, origins of life, things that go bump in the night, Tunguska, as being something unique and significant. They inevitably fail.

If one were to accept this "theory" then one must also explain why all of the other meteors that crash into our planet every day, and there are tons of them, did not cause this effect in the preceeding 10,000 years.

The "theory" is convenience and coincidence overriding the scientific method.

Kate wonders why I am so negative. I am a remarkably positive and happy person ... almost never with anything but a smile on my face. But, for some reason, science seems to attract the uneducated and the lunatic fringe. I see this "theory" as just one more from the far-edge of reason.

While he refers to Tunguska specifically in this instance, Shaidurov considers any similar event to be capable of causing such atmospheric disruption.

As for "tons of meteorites" and other celestial objects exploding above or into Earth, please refer to the SAGG feature article where this angle is covered. In it you will find that scientists from the Australian Antarctic Division, the University of Western Ontario, Aerospace Corporation, Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories claim that: "Our observations suggest that [meteors exploding] in Earth's atmosphere could play a more important role in climate than previously recognized."

DA Morgan
Member
Member # 5

Member Rated:
posted March 18, 2006 12:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russian scientist's theory is hogwash. Could it be a contributing factor? Absolutely! Can it explain the fact that the warming trne started in the 1800s?


what about the warming trend that started 14000 years ago and is still going. yes, it might have accelerated since th 1800, but it also accelerated several times in the last 14000 years.

Rusty made reference to:
"Our observations suggest that [meteors exploding] in Earth's atmosphere could play a more important role in climate than previously recognized."

And I have no problem with this statement: They may. But there is no linkage between the statement and the continuing popular nonsense around Tunguska. Could there be a link? Perhaps. But there is no evidence of one ... just idle speculations.

Take a look at the effect of major volcanic eruptions? Do they affect the climate? Absolutely. Are they far larger than Tunguska? Absolutely? Are people writing fanciful nonsense about them? No!

dehammer wrote:
"what about the warming trend that started 14000 years ago and is still going. yes, it might have accelerated since th 1800, but it also accelerated several times in the last 14000 years."

And this relates to the current situation in what way?

One is an integer.
Ten is an integer.
Based on your peculiar form of illogic ... one equals ten.

DA Morgan, i would reply to that but i dont even understand what your trying to say.

no, by my logic 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10

by your logic (if i can come close to understand it) the first 9 1's not count, only the last one does.

what im say is that the last 200 years have been a continuation of the warming trend started 14000 years ago. all the warming that has been happening has not occured in the last 200 years.

do to the fact that what is causing the warm up it the suns radiation, the less of that reflected away by the ice, the more the planet warms up. this means that there has been a gradual increase in the speed of the that warm up. yes, we likely increased it, but we are not thre creators of that warm up. by the fragments of your logic i can figure out, your claiming that since man has been increasing it, he is solo responsible for all the damage that is happening.

actually they have writen what at least according to you is "nonsense". ive seen the original site discussion that idea, and the scientist does not claim that it is the solo cause of the warming. he does say that there is a corrilation and things ppl should think about it, and perhap intergrate it into other theories. only ppl like you that are not willing to accept other ppl theories as having any possible reality try to put it in to the black and white catagory of it being the sole cause of the warming.

dehammer wrote:
"scientist does not claim that it is the solo cause of the warming."

Of course it isn't. What planet are you on? What cave are you holed up in?

So what? Does global warming have to be isolated down to a single definitively identified cause before you will rise to the occassion and acknowledge it?

It really doesn't matter why the glaciers on Greenland are melting. You are going to have to learn to swim ... with a devastated economy ... with wars and violence on an unprecedented level ... and with a bunch of closed-minded morons pointing fingers at each other yelling "Why didn't somebody do something?"

As Charlie Brown would say: "Good grief."

appearantly youve not read a single thing ive written. ive acknowledge that there are many causes, but have steadfastly said that man is not the primary cause, but only an accelerator, if that.

the truth about the melt off, is that its occuring over a long period, which is not likely to trigger a war or anything. what it will trigger is more storms like katrina, more droughts in places that normally get rain, more rain in areas that normally are arid, and more arguement over what should have been done about it. the biggest thing that it will creat is more ppl pointing fingers at others claming that they were the only ones capable of doing anything.

THEN will come the caldera volcano eruptions and all that arguement will become moot.

i dont disagree that there is going to be damage from the melt off, but i say it will be limited by the amount of time before the super volcano ends that discussion by creating a period of
glaceration. if man has inadvertantly saved himself, buy warming the planet up enough to prevent a global glaceration, im sure the odd gods of the universe will be laughing their collective heads off.

dehammer wrote:
"but have steadfastly said that man is not the primary cause, but only an accelerator, if that."

Actually I have read what you've written: And I've disagreed precisely because you are incorrect.

We ARE THE PRIMARY cause!

And if you don't believe that you need to pay attention to the publications in scientific journals where what is written is not influenced by domestic politics.

ive never yet seen any funded scientific study, that did not come up with the answer the funding organization had already determined before hand. please answer me this. if man is the primary cause, how did we start it before we were able to make rock hammers (those things that are a rock held on a stick by a strap of leather or other material. you see, the warming trend started 14000 years ago, but we have not been using tools that long.

You ought to get out and read more.

Not that there isn't any politics involved in who's studies get funded, and by which organizations, but I can't think of a researcher who wouldn't just LOVE to blow the lid off of current scientific belief, in whatever their area of expertise.

dehammer asks:
"if man is the primary cause, how did we start it before we were able to make rock hammers"

You really must get out more. That question has been answered for quite some time now. By burning forests. We started doing it shortly after we moved from hunter-gatherers into agriculture.

What were you doing when you were supposed to be in school?

you should do a little more thinking before you post. how did a tiny population of humans who had not yet discovered fire, and could not chop a single tree, cause that kind of deforestation. at that point in our 'civiliazation' we were at the stage of being hunter gatherers.

the answer is obvious for anyone that can open their eyes. all you have to do is look and you will see the answer.

since you will not, man did not. man could not.

dehammer asks:
"how did a tiny population of humans who had not yet discovered fire, and could not chop a single tree, cause that kind of deforestation"

Figure it out. I'm not nursemaiding you to answers that are:
1. Published in journals
2. Easy for anyone with a high school diploma to deduce.

since your still needing it, ill spoon feed it too you. man was not a tool maker at the time the global warming began. he could not make the ax needed to chop a tree down, therefore could not have started the deforestations you believe caused it.

your are right, even a someone with a high school diploma could figure that out. so when do you get yours. 4 years? 5?

I don't think they let people teach at the University of Washington without one so ... once again ... you figure it out.

Your assumption as to when humans had the ability to control fire is so far wide of the mark it missed Neptune.

Meow! One more from either of you and I'll cut you both out.

Amaranth
Moderator

my appologies for responding in kind, i should have kept it clean from my side at least. thats all i could have controled and all i should have hoped to.

i could be wrong on when man found fire, but i do know that man did not populate the earth in great enough numbers to have that kind of influnce on the earth even if we had chain saws and blow torches back then.

dehammer wrote:
"i could be wrong on when man found fire"

Man found fire hundreds of millions of years ago. When we first figured out how to grab a burning branch and use it? Try this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3557077.stm
1.5 million years ago. Long enough ago for you acknowledge my point?

dehammer wrote:
"but i do know that man did not populate the earth in great enough numbers to have that kind of influnce on the earth even if we had chain saws and blow torches back then."

Wrong again mon ami. It takes only a few people making noise to spark a stampede. It takes only one to start a grass fire capable of turning millions of square miles into a smoking cinder.

There is a large amount of documentary evidence that the rise in global CO2 levels equates to the beginning of forest burning by humans.

Here's just one of many items easily found with google.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...p;dopt=Abstract

Please note two things. First this is posted by the National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health. Not by GreenPeace or some other bunch of ecowhiners. Second note the following sentence:

"Global fire indices parallel the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration recorded in Antarctic ice cores."

I don't make this stuff up. I don't spout Republican, Democrat, Liberal, NeoCon, or Socialist propaganda. This is reality. You need to adjust your thinking accordingly.

there are periods where there are major fires from natures, that does not mean that man had anythign to do with them. just holding a burning brance does not mean he has learned how to use it. it also does not mean he knows how to deforest things.

in case you missed it, they did not figure out which species of humonoid did that. there is strong evidence that our ancestores were not the most advance of humonoid around. the peking man was not in our line and was mummifing their dead when we were just leaving ours to the prediators.

the fires could just as easy be due to a drought that left a large area ripe for range fires.

in addition those things you high lighted were about time 6000 years ago, not 14000. the global warming began 14000 years ago, not 6000 or 1.5 million years ago.

dehammer wrote:
"there are peroids where there are major fires from natures, that does not mean that man had anythign to do with them."

The link yet again:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...p;dopt=Abstract

This time read for comprehension.

And when you are done use google.com to read the many other articles by reputable researchers and reputable colleges and universities. You are spouting balderdash.

"In Europe the significant increase of fire activity is dated approximately 6000 cal. yr ago. In north-eastern North America burning activity was greatest before 7500 years ago, very low between 7500-3000 years, and has been increasing since 3000 years ago."

lets see, global warming began 14000 years ago, there was a periods of increased activity in north america where the native americans were so industilized about 7500 ago (during a period that appears to be a long drought), and then a low period between 7500 and 3000 years go, then a gradual increase for 3000 years. in europe it began about 6000 years ago and has been increasing. since man has been increasing in eruope for that same time, i can see that perhaps we had something to do with the deforestions from 6000 years ago. but that still does not have anything to do with 14000 years ago. your reply is still short 8000 years.

"And when you are done use google.com to read the many other articles by reputable researchers and reputable colleges and universities. You are spouting balderdash"

i will be happy to as soon as i find a article written by someone not paid to find proof that man is reponsible for the global waming. thats like asking some of Bush's best friends to write a report on weither or not Bush has been good for the country. of couse, they will show unanimously that he is great for the country. the same is true for ppl paid to find proof that man's polution is reponsible for it, or those paid for by companies that want to prove that man is not responsible. i tried to google it, and every thing i found was paid for by environmental concerned groups or by oil companies. guess what. they complete disagreed on what the cause was. go figure. :rolleyes:

when you find one written by someone that is not paid for by one side or the other, let me know. i seriously doubt you will as they will likely say, "what man made global warming"

dehammer wrote:
"lets see, global warming began 14000 years ago,"

I said read for comprehension and then go to google and learn something.

What you might find is that a natural trend has been superceded by a man-made trend.

But then that might conflict with your already made up mind ... so you just continue this purposeless argumentative nonsense with yourself.

DA Morgan wrote
"What you might find is that a natural trend has been superceded by a man-made trend."

please explain this. the trend was there already. its been going exactly the same as it was before, with perhaps a little acceleration. how is this "superceded by man made trend". unless im missing something here, the trend was there exaclty as it is now. warming periods of an ice age are called interglacerial periods. they can last for 30, 40 thousand years. this one has lasted 14000 years, and may be the end of this ice age. as the saying goes, all good things must come to an end, and that does include ice ages. how is a man made trend that is exactly what nature was already doing, different.

let me try to explain it too you. sunlight is reflected off ice, back into space. as the ice disappears the is less reflected and more absorbed by the land and sea mass. that means higher tempature and more ice melts. you can watch this yourself some winter that there is snow on the ground. as long as there is lots of snow, it melts slowly, but as the ice and snow melt off, it melts faster.

i did learn something from googling global warming. the scare mongers are putting a lot of money into convenicing ppl to send money for their researchers. they are as bad as the religious organization. of course, you could argue that this is their religion

dehammer:

Which part of:
"so you just continue this purposeless argumentative nonsense with yourself."

Didn't you understand?

your right. when someone is so unwilling to listen to truth and is as willing as you to resort to insults when there is no way to get around the truth someone shows you, there is no need for further discussion. i will not follow you into trading insults. ive given you proof your not willing to see.