Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[gatorback]

RiversideGator, I agree in part to your statement that "we appear to be entering a cool phase".   The graph points to that direction in my opinion.

[RiversideGator]

So, without using technical terminology which I do not have the inclination to look up, why dont you tell us what you see in that chart?

[RiversideGator]

From the beloved wikipedia:

Sympathetic resonance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sympathetic resonance is a harmonic phenomenon wherein a formerly passive string or vibratory body responds to external vibrations to which it has a harmonic likeness. The classic example is demonstrated with two similar tuning-forks of which one is mounted on a wooden box. If the other one is struck and then placed on the box, then muted, the un-struck mounted fork will be heard. In similar fashion will strings respond to the external vibrations of a tuning-fork when sufficient harmonic relations exists between the respective vibratory modes. A unison or octave will provoke the largest response as there is maximum likeness in vibratory motion. Other links through shared resonances occur at the fifth and third though with less effect. The principle of sympathetic resonanance has been applied in musical instruments from many cultures and times. Apart from the basic principle at work on instruments with many undamped strings, such as harps, lutes, guitars and pianos with the dampers raised, other instruments are fitted with extra choirs of sympathetic strings, which respond with a silvery halo to the tones played on the main strings.

Lewcock et al.(2006) states that:

    The property of sympathetic vibration is encountered in its direct form in room acoustics in the rattling of window panes, light shades and movable panels in the presence of very loud sounds, such as may occasionally be produced by a full organ. As these things rattle (or even if they do not audibly rattle) sound energy is being converted into mechanical energy, and so the sound is absorbed. Wood panelling and anything else that is lightweight and relatively unrestrained have the same effect. Absorptivity is at its highest at the resonance frequency, usually near or below 100 Hz.

Arden Wilken on his website provides a significant example of the power of resonance:

    The power of resonance can be seen dramatically in what occurred in 1940 to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in the State of Washington, USA. The wind created a tone as it blew across the valley, which happened to be the natural frequency of the bridge itself. This resonance created by the wind led to the total collapse of the bridge.

    A film of the bridge in the process of collapsing showed it undulating wildly in a continuous wave, appearing to be made out of ribbon instead of concrete and steel. The wind set the bridge in motion - at its own structural resonance frequency. In this case, unfortunately, the gradual build-up of vibration overcame the bounds of elasticity so that the bridge eventually collapsed. The wind set it in motion, just as it may set off a spider in its own web, bouncing to and fro at the resonance-frequency of the web with the spider in that particular place. If the spider could move away from that spot, the bouncing would stop. An example of proper sympathetic resonance is a windowpane rattling seadily at the very low powerful sound of a bus or truck engine going stationary. The rattling will usually occur at a higher harmonic of the sound made by the engine. As soon as the driver changes into gear the rattling will stop, often changing its rhythm before it stops altogether. Powerful sopranos bursting wineglasses fits in to the same category - sympathetic resonance at a distance.

Now, if you were to plot a sine wave using the upper and lower points of the temperature excursions (disregarding the blips because they are anomalous and insignificant), you would see that it is a resonant system, in that it basically tracks a sine wave. As that sine wave gets wider its frequency is decreasing. Because the earth is so large, and is acted upon by even larger forces of gravity (the Moon) and heat (the sun) the period of these oscillations are a very low frequency, maybe years or tens of years per cycle. But, on the other hand it does not take much energy at all to disrupt the usual resonant frequency because that frequency is influenced by millions of variables, most of which are not understood, and the results of relatively small disruptions can manifest themselves in very large ways.

Just like it took a relatively small amount of wind to set that bridge in motion.

Sorry, thats it for todays science lesson.

And, BTW, Wiki's explanation of how the wind influenced the bridge is INCORRECT, as usual.

So, you have concluded from looking at 100 years of temperature charts that the Earth's temperature variations are akin to vibrations on a tuning fork?  That is rich.   

BTW, you still have not been qualified as an expert on the subject of climatology (or tuning forks for that matter).  What was your field again?   

[RiversideGator]

I am a mere child compared with your intellectual prowess.   

Now, rather than attacking me please explain your positions.  You spend 90% of your time attempting to insult me.  The remaining 10% is spent posting bizarre theories.  Stick with the bizarre theories, but just elaborate further on them without attempting to dazzle us with your command of obscure technical jargon.

BTW, I NEVER claimed to be an expert on climatology.  In fact, I just stated that I am a layman.  I simply have read about "climate change" a bit.  Since you are too afraid to tell us what you do, I can only assume that you are not an expert on it either.  So, your opinion is therefore just as valid as mine (or they are both equally invalid).  And again, you are the one who keeps raising the issue of scientific knowledge and credentials.  Please tell us yours or stop whining about it.

Finally, let's be honest.  There are legitimate credentialed scientists on both sides of this issue.

[gatorback]

wow. If Al Gore has the goods then so do I. Kids I studied under that famed UF prof that set up the 1st scientific outpost in Antarctica, Bow subjects.

[Charleston native]

If those are the credentials for Midway and gatorback to be experts, I hereby dub myself an expert in genetics since I studied under a well-known geneticist from Duke University...

...oh, but don't ask me what my grades were. 

Here is just my observation about that chart, since we're pontificating on its legitimacy and measured data. The chart appears to indicate a warming cycle interspersed with small cooling cycles at the beginning of the chart. Then follows a major cooling cycle followed by a warming cycle very similar to the first one measured at the beginning. From this data, we can deduce that perhaps we're at the end of the warming cycle and will experience a major cooling cycle again, based on measurements in frequency and amplitude.

Oh yeah, that's right...natural cycles would also debunk man-made climate change. Oops.

[gatorback]

har har.  I remember being stoned again on the campus of the University of Florida in Peabody Hall during physics class listening to Dr. Dunnam (pronounced Dunm, who would ever forget a name like dr. dumb) talk about amanda this and amanda that.  I always figured amanda was either a coed he was doinking or his wife.  Who'd guess the old geaser would  be the first to detect nuetrinos in an object other then the sun from his little cosmic ray gun at the south pole.

You can't make this stuff up people.   

[RiversideGator]

Well Midway, let's see.  A few thoughts:
1.  Using a chart that has temperature data going back just 120 years is fundamentally dishonest as 1880 marked the approximate end of the Little Ice Age.  So, naturally temperatures have been rising since then.  A longer term chart is far more informative (and less scary, much to the chagrin of the GW scare mongers):


http://www.weatherquestions.com/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg

Fig. 3. Global average temperature reconstruction based upon 18 temperature proxies for the period 1 A.D. to 1995, combined with the thermometer-based dataset from the UK Met Office and University of East Anglia, covering the period 1850 to 2007. Note that for both datasets each data point represents a 30-year average.

2.  Correlation does not prove causation.  Just because the temperature rise has been concomitant with industrialization does not mean that industrialization caused the temperature rise.  They could just as easily be  two totally unrelated phenomena.  In fact, some scientists believe that the rise in CO2 levels are the result of the temperature rise rather than the cause of it.  In fact, it appears from this chart that the CO2 levels change after the temperature changes, not before it:


Even this article, which purports to debunk the theory above, supports it with this statement:

Another feedback contender, suggested over a century ago, is CO2. In the past decade, detailed studies of ice cores have shown there is a remarkable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the past half million years (see Vostok ice cores show constant CO2 as temperatures fell).

It takes about 5000 years for an ice age to end and, after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for a further 4200 years.

What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor â€" most probably orbital changes â€" caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

This all begs the question:  What caused the CO2 levels to rise in the eras before man?  Clearly, there is a natural process which we do not understand and which is cyclical which caused both the rise in temperatures and CO2 levels.  It appears therefore that this would happen whether or not we are even present on Earth.

3.  Dr. Roy Spencer is a well known climatologist who dissents from the church of Global Warming.  There are many other scientists who disagree also.  I would encourage you to read more about him here:  http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

[RiversideGator]

Add to all this the new paper in Nature in which scientists now predict global cooling over the next 10 years, and you have a real monkey wrench thrown into the gears of the GW machine.  If their models previously did not show the new cooling cycle, then they were wrong.  And if they were wrong in the short run, how wrong could they be in the long run and of what value are they at all?

Here is Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. weighing in on the subject on his blog:

For a while now I've been asking climate scientists to tell me what could be observed in the real world that would be inconsistent with forecasts (predictions, projections, etc.) of climate models, such as those that are used by the IPCC. I've long suspected that the answer is "nothing" and the public silence from those in the outspoken climate science community would seem to back this up. Now a paper in Nature today (PDF) suggests that cooling in the world's oceans couldthat the world may cool over the next 20 years few decades , according to Richard Woods who comments on the paper in the same issue, "temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere", and this would not be inconsistent with predictions of longer-term global warming.

I am sure that this is an excellent paper by world class scientists. But when I look at the broader significance of the paper what I see is that there is in fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun.

This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy. I am sure that some model somewhere has foretold how the next 20 years will evolve (and please ask me in 20 years which one!). And if none get it right, it won't mean that any were actually wrong. If there is no future over the next few decades that models rule out, then anything is possible. And of course, no one needed a model to know that.

Don't get me wrong, models are great tools for probing our understanding and exploring various assumptions about how nature works. But scientists think they know with certainty that carbon dioxide leads to bad outcomes for the planet, so future modeling will only refine that fact. I am focused on the predictive value of the models, which appears to be nil. So models have plenty of scientific value left in them, but tools to use in planning or policy? Forget about it.

Those who might object to my assertion that models are of no practical use beyond political promotion, can start by returning to my original question: What can be observed in the climate over the next few decade that would be inconsistent with climate model projections? If you have no answer for this question then I'll stick with my views.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001413global_cooling_consi.html

[gatorback]

I was going to quote that Friday, but my internet started messing up (Thank You Al Gore).  I agree we need to do something and I agree that Greenspan is correct in increasing the tax on fuel by $3.00 a gallon. 

Let's get serious, if we did raise the tax $3.00 we would cut C02 emissions and that's a good thing.

[JeffreyS]

We could cut the CO2 and become energy independent in about a month if we cut the speed limit to 55mph.  It worked in the 70s it would work now.

[gatorback]

That wouldn't fly in Texas but probably would fly in CA, FL, MA, NY, NJ.  There was a huge uproar when the federal governemet limited highway speed and we all know it worked that we saved billions of barrels of oil, so the question is, then why don't states limit the speed.  Why aren't the tree hugging liberal states  all over that. 

[JeffreyS]

I think people would be more receptive right now.  We are at war and cuting the speed limit would drop the price of gas like a rock.  It would just take a little leadership which is what this country is currently short of.  I can't imagine Bush and or Pelosie convincing anyone of anything right now.

[gatorback]

I agree we would never convince Pelosie et.  al.  to pass legislation that would cut Exxon's profits.  So what's up with that Windfall profit tax? Those inititives are popular whipping boys but never pan out to the detriment of society.  Wasn't it Jimmy Carter that got the speed bill passed?

[RiversideGator]

BTW, I NEVER claimed to be an expert on climatology.  In fact, I just stated that I am a layman.  I simply have read about "climate change" a bit.  Since you are too afraid to tell us what you do, I can only assume that you are not an expert on it either.  So, your opinion is therefore just as valid as mine (or they are both equally invalid).  And again, you are the one who keeps raising the issue of scientific knowledge and credentials.  Please tell us yours or stop whining about it.

Finally, let's be honest.  There are legitimate credentialed scientists on both sides of this issue.

So, without using technical terminology which I do not have the inclination to look up, why dont you tell us what you see in that chart?

BTW, you still have not been qualified as an expert on the subject of climatology (or tuning forks for that matter).  What was your field again?

We know the kelp and sea creatures lived in the oceans so either the land was pushed up or the oceans receded. Or there could have been a global flood in which all of the earth's land masses were covered with water.  If this was the case I sure am glad someone had the revelation to build a giant boat and preserve the wonderful creatures we have here on earth.

Ice cores have established the existence of at least 17 Ice Age Cycles in just the past 2 million years.

Considering the earth is only about 6,000 years old I have to disagree with this "fact" and all of the other "facts" that rely on the earth being older than it is.

Based on Genealogical Records in the Bible the earth is about 6,000 years old.

We absolutely should not claim to be all-knowing.  The only being that is all-knowing is God.  By the way, depending on what part of nature you are specifically talking about nature has only been around for 5 days longer than man.

How ridiculous to post a chart showing 400,000 years of temperatures when it already has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt previously in this very post that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

And River, since you always object to things in this post that you disagree with, and there was no objection to the fact that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that implies your approval of that position. And since you approve of these facts as handed down by God almighty to our lord and savior Jesus Christ, and recorded in the bible, which is the acknowledged word of God, then it invalidates any conclusions that you have drawn from that obviously fraudulent chart of tempertaures that purports to go back 400,000 years, which you know to be impossible because the earth and time itself did not exist prior to 6,000 years ago.

So, this means then that you are unable to answer my posts then?  Instead, you went off on a tangent in an attempt to throw up a smoke screen.