Hamlet (Act 1, Scene V, 166-167)

[Stonehead]

Saw this at Slashdot: Sun May Be Warming Both Earth and Mars

 

Ok, I'm not disputing global warming and I believe in an anthropogenic contribution. And I'm a believer in getting to work on this problem to mitigate its effects. But, on the other hand, I think that a lot of stuff is driven by politics.

 

There are recurrent cycles of warming and cooling of different periodicities and magnitudes. There's still dispute regarding their causes:

 

New ice age theory: Sun's 'dimmer switch'

But, stratigraphers recognize many scales of cyclicity in the rock record.

 

It's interesting though that our solar system appears to be warming:

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

 

Ponder this: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, the sun has been getting warmer...very slowly, and will continue to do so until it self destructs. That's been known for decades.

 

The current warming trend is not slow, nor linear, and has been proven to be tied to human generated CO2 emissions, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the sun's much, much more gradual warming.

 

 

[Dechristo]

The current warming trend is not slow, nor linear, and has been proven to be tied to human generated CO2 emissions, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the sun's much, much more gradual warming.

 

I have no doubt this statement is in error in at least one of its assertions.

[Stonehead]

As I understand it, indeed, the sun's luminosity is increasing as it ages, thus it will expand. The Earth is currently within a constantly habitable zone (CHZ) but within time it will be engulfed by heat as the sun's outer gaseous layer expands outward. This is a secular trend over time much as the Earth's counterbalancing, dominant secular trend has been cooling. Superimposed over the secular trends are cyclical patterns of cooling and warming. These cyclical patterns are as large scale as Fischer's Icehouse/Greenhouse cycle (Paleozoic/Mesozoic Supercontinent Formation/Breakup), mid scale such as Carboniferous Glaciation (Milankovitch Orbital Parameters), and small scale. There are also factors that are non-periodic (but perhaps quasiperiodic) such as the latitudinal position of the continental landmasses as was seen during the Ordovician Period.

 

I don't profess to know the dominant factor in global warming but do understand it is multivariate.

[Stonehead]

Did you also know that the other noteworthy secular trend as been the Earth's slowing rotational rate due to the frictional forces of the Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth's oceans? Yeah, you learned this in high school.

 

But additionally, there's cyclic changes in the Earth's rotational rate or length of day. The shorter term variations are caused by redistributions of the various masses (atmospheric, e.g.) over the Earth. Not sure if cause or effect but related to El Nino-Southern Oscillation. Also, change in temperature plus change in length of day leads to evolutionary changes in biota.

[foraker]

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

[Stonehead]

Fair enough. One vote against this proposed mechanism. It doesn't seem that this mechanism is as widely as accepted as Milankovitch Orbital Parameters. But how do you explain detected warming on other planetary bodies in this solar system?

 

Also. Take a look at the Cretaceous. Carbon burial appears to be very effective during this time. Upwelling, high primary productivity, black shales. Enough so that atmospheric oxygen content appeared to be higher than currently present. Indications of widespread wildfires (charcoal), for instance. Yet, this appears to be a greenhouse period. If carbon sequesteration were the main influence then wouldn't you expect to see the opposite?

 

The assumption is that gaseous carbon compounds are the primary driver in climatic change. Conversely, I don't expect that solar luminosity is the simple trigger. There's more to the picture than this dicthotomy. For instance, redistribution of heat also plays into the scenario.

[foraker]

I submit that you look at the time scales over which these proposed mechanisms occur and then consider the time scale of the current warming trend.

 

Edited March 5, 2007 by foraker

[underworld]

and consider the time of industrialization and cars...in compared to the scale of all time. mere blink of an eye. it can be argued that recent observations are just noise on a larger trend.

[Dechristo]

Foraker's link addresses the solar affect of most limited temporal scope, or the "small scale" as cited in Stonehead's second post in this thread. Solar brightness variance doesn't account for the appearance of continental ice sheets thousands of feet thick nor their disappearance within three thousand years, for example.

 

There have been, and continue to be, many powerful and variable factors.

[archenemy]

Something is rotten in Denmark.

 

[ivan]

someone save me the damn trouble of looking oup the line - what the hell does this have to do w/ hamlet?

 

sounds like our exploration of mars is ruining their atmosphere too!

[Dechristo]

Cadillac made the Martian Rovers and got 'em designated as SUV/Light Trucks so they wouldn't require emissions testing.

[tvashtarkatena]

Did you also know that the other noteworthy secular trend as been the Earth's slowing rotational rate due to the frictional forces of the Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth's oceans? Yeah, you learned this in high school.

 

 

Yes, it's called conservation of energy and momentum, and, in fact, I did learn it in high school.

 

You're throwing out a lot of chaff here. Your are correct in saying that the earth's fundamental climatic drivers are cyclical pertebations in its axial tilt, precession, and orbital ellipse...before we got here, that is. You neglected to mention that these well known cycles predict that we should be heading back into an ice age. Clearly, we are going rapidly in the other direction, and that's solely because of human kind.

 

You also neglected to mention that the sun's warming is so slow that it will take anywhere from 250 million to 1 billion years to render the earth uninhabitable. This warming is many orders of magnitude smaller in scale than the current warming causes by atmospheric carbon.

 

You lump irrelevant factors (day length), and climatic drivers that are orders of magnitude apart in scale without presenting them as such. I'd stay away from scientific arguments in the future if I were you. It's just not your thing.

Edited March 5, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

alright - i found the text, but i'll do be corn-holed by opheila 'fore i count down 160-some-odd lines - please provide numbered lines or choose one's leass than 10 (so i don't have to take off my shoes)

[archenemy]

I think that part of the play refers to the fact that Hamlet told his buddy that he would be acting like a madman (it is the section used to argue that Hamlet was not indeed mad, but only faking it).

 

I have no idea how that fits into the topic at hand.

[ivan]

HAMLET

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;

Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,

How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,

As I perchance hereafter shall think meet

To put an antic disposition on, (1.5.172)

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I think Shakespeare is saying here that Al Gore should get rid of his hot tub.

[archenemy]

HAMLET

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;

Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,

How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,

As I perchance hereafter shall think meet

To put an antic disposition on, (1.5.172)

 

Nice! YOu found the actual lines. So what is the connection? Do you get it? I don't.

[G-spotter]

"More things in heaven and Earth than in your philosophy" is the link.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Shakespeare also alludes to the slight variations in day length due to the natural movement of snaffles back and forth across the Earth's surface.

Edited March 5, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[archenemy]

"More things in heaven and Earth than in your philosophy" is the link.

 

But we are talking about those things specifically in the heavens and the earth within this philosophy.

[tvashtarkatena]

Paraphrased: "It's all just a theory. You can't prove anything."

 

This is the kind of safe haven a moron always keeps close at hand.

 

Seahawk was actually Shakespeare's ghost writer.

Edited March 5, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

i liked captain aubrey's comment in "masturbater and commander" more; to his doctor friend, the enligthtenment-era model of scientific sagacity, on the subject of existence of "jonahs" -

 

"not everything is in your books, stephen"

[Stonehead]

I submit that you look at the time scales over which these proposed mechanisms occur and then consider the time scale of the current warming trend.

 

Yes, I'm wid ya on that. Relatively rapid increasing trend of carbon dioxide accumulation correlated with increase in mean global temperature. As I said at the beginning, I don’t dispute the anthropogenic component of global warming. So, I’m not debating competing mechanisms. But for contrast, the shortest periodicities predicted by MOP are cycles between 19,000 and 23,000 years.

 

Incidentally, the earth changes induced by variations in orbital parameters have a lag time before the corresponding climate change. Interestingly, there are also lag times between carbon dioxide accumulations and climate changes. For instance, see this article ( Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations).

 

..."High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations;..."

 

There’s no disputing global warming even if we’re in the icehouse phase of the Phanerozoic Supercycle or in the interglacial period following glaciations due to orbital parameters. It doesn’t matter where we are with respect to which cycle.

 

My whole point is that global warming due to anthropogenic causes is the dominant paradigm. It’s the widely accepted, orthodox explanation of the changes occurring. As such, the solutions appear to be geared towards controlling economic activities that give rise to carbon dioxide emissions. Given there are solutions proposing technological endeavors such as seeding the oceans with iron to enhance primary productivity. But these are fantastic megaprojects. I also find it ironic that some environmentalists are touting nuclear energy as a viable clean source of energy as opposed to carbon emitting power plants. Who would have thunk, nuclear = green.

 

What do I take issue with? It’s the whole evangelical zeal taken by some firmly convinced that there’s only one fundamental solution to this problem. It’s based on the faith of scientific certainty and its orthodoxy. It's a secular religion under the guise of an environmental movement. There is no room in their philosophy to entertain any ideas that compete with the dominant paradigm. As I understand the advancement of science, it’s the competition of ideas or rather the people who push the ideas and sometimes it’s more political than based in purely empirical basis.

 

Anyway to hear them talk about it you'd think we're doomed.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/features/2000-2009/2004/12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c