The problems of global warming

[andre]

For those who are still able to punch through the horrifying propaganda for global warming and for those who are willing to do some thinking, I'm happy to explain why global warming cannot be true.

The short abstract would be as follows:

Greenhouse effect is based on radiative properties of certain trace gasses. The basics physics of this is well known. The main point is the presence of those gasses, much more than its concentration. There is quite some consensus (although disputable) between warmers and sceptics that, purely based on physics, doubling CO2 concentration increases the greenhouse effect with about one degree. So if we would go from a preindustrial 280 ppmv (now ~380ppmv) to 560 ppmv in another 100 years, the pure physics alone would have increased the greenhouse effect with one degree. That's not enough for being catastrophical, is it?

But there are feedbacks, mechanisms that strenghten or weaken the effect. Positive and negative feedback. Melting snow makes the earth darker, it absorpts more light, making it warmer still, that's one example of positive feedback. Warming causes increased evaporation, which cools in the first place but it also forms clouds that reflect sunlight making it cooler, that's an example of negative feedback. The big dispute is which feedback is the strongest.

This question is impossible to solve with models alone, so we have to look back at the climatologic history, which brings us to the ice ages. So we have those ice cores with both temperatures and CO2 doing the same roller coaster ride here:



So a clear solution here? Historical data proofs beyond a doubt that a bit of CO2 changes brings about large temperature changes? Hence large domination of positive feedback? Open and shut case?

Forget about it, this big jolly giant spoils it all:



making it very clear that there is something terribly wrong with the interpretation of the ice core proxies.

[Jason]

I don't see how invoking the mammoth helps your case, Andre. I'd like you to explain it, but, before you do, I would like to ask, is the upcoming explanation the gist of your reason for disbelieving global warming by humans?  Other factors have risen CO2 in the past prior to industrialization, of course.

[andre]

the gist is not the CO2 but the temperatures being other than interpreted. This beast is a replica of the Yukagir Mammoth which was found in Yakutia close to the Arctic coast, about this beast, I helped triting two books. It was carbon dated about 18,300 years ago which calibrates to about 22,000 years ago, which is just about the lower part of the ice age spikes, at the beginning of the Last Glacial Maximum where it was supposed to be 10 degrees colder than today.

The place where is was found is only a few months above freezing and belongs to the coldest spots on Earth. In wintertime there is 6-8 feet of snow for 7-8 months. Animal live is the bare minimum.

So what does the stomach contents and sediments around the mummy tell us? A typical grassy steppe with a high density of grazers, due to the dung and fungi and with very little snow in winter time due to specific species of beetles. And all of that on one of the coldests spots on Earth during it's coldest time in the ice age?

Incidenely this was true for most of North East Siberia, North West Siberia was indeed colder during the Last Glacial Maximum. But still there is something very weird here, don't you think?

See also:
http://earth.myfastforum.org/Mammoths_orphans_of_Earth_quartenary_paleo_climate_science_about5.html