What's new
By:

Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
DutchJazzer said:
how many failed climate models do you need form now one to see that it is not settled science!
Click to expand...


you're arguing religion here, no use.

I've been going over the reports on ice core drilling and CO2 measurements. When we had only one data set, it was clear science. . . . but oh, the agony, the horror of two clocks!!! how can we make them say the same thing, or explain it so it sounds the same. Oh yes, here's the ticket, CO2 diffuses in the ice, too. If we just adjust the rate of diffusion, we can make the CO2 data agree......
 
ICE core temps and CO2 lag......shows outgassing oceans causes atmospheric rise in CO2

Here's a little snippet of contrarian science:

https://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

It is interesting to note that the IPCC scientific report (e.g., the AR4) avoids this question of lag. Instead of pointing it out, they write that in some cases (e.g., when comparing Antarctic CO2 to temperature data) it is hard to say anything definitive since the data sets come from different cores. This is of course chaff to cover the fact that when CO2 and temperature are measured with the same cores, or when carefully comparing different cores, a lag of typically several hundred years is found to be present, if the quality and resolution permit. Such an example is found in the figure below.

Analysis of ice core data from Antarctica by Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years.
There are many examples of studies finding lags, a few examples include:
Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years, using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present (see figure).
Fischer et al. (Science, vol 283, p. 1712, 1999) reported a time lag 600±400 yr during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions.
Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005) find a best lag of 1900 years in the Antarctic data.
Monnin et al. (Science vol 291, 112, 2001) find that the start of the CO2 increase in the beginning of the last interglacial lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.
Clearly, the correlation and lags unequivocally demonstrate that the temperature drives changes in the atmospheric CO2 content. The same correlations, however cannot be used to say anything about the temperature's sensitivity to variations in the CO2. I am sure there is some effect in that direction, but to empirically demonstrate it, one needs a correlation between the temperature and CO2 variations, which do not originate from temperature variations.

The only temperature independent CO2 variations I know of are those of anthropogenic sources, i.e., the 20th century increase, and CO2 variations over geological time scales.

Since the increase of CO2 over the 20th is monotonic, and other climate drivers (e.g., the sun) increased as well, a correlation with temperature is mostly meaningless. This leaves the geological variations in CO2 as the only variations which could be used to empirically estimate the effect of the CO2→ΔT link.

The reason that over geological time scales, the variations do not depend on the temperature is because over these long durations, the total CO2 in the ecosystem varies from a net imbalance between volcanic out-gassing and sedimentation/subduction. This "random walk" in the amount of CO2 is the reason why there were periods with 3 or even 10 times as much CO2 than present, over the past billion years.

Unfortunately, there is no clear correlation between CO2 and temperature over geological time scales. This lack of correlation should have translated into an upper limit on the CO2→ΔT link. However, because the geochemical temperature data is actually biased by the amount of CO2, this lack of correlation result translates into a CO2 doubling sensitivity which is about ΔTx2 ~ 1.0±0.5°C. More about it in this paper.

The moral of this story is that when you are shown data such as the graph by Al Gore, ask yourself what does it really mean. You might be surprised from the answer.

Show
Upper limit on the effects of CO2
shaviv's blog
Share
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook

172
Share to Twitter

Share to Print

Share to Email


Share to More

67
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Heat Sources for Planet Earth

Any model of climate change or correlations of climate with atmospheric temperatures should include all the contributing heat sources and heat sinks.

A "source" for atmospheric heat supplies heat to the atmosphere, a "sink" removes heat from the atmosphere.

duh..... lessee...... hmmmmmm......

oh yeah, I got it!!!!! The SUN. almost nobody could miss that. What amount of heat comes from the sun? Does that amount vary? Short answer is it is fairly constant with short cycles linked to sunspot activities, which also emit particles that can cause "solar storms" in our upper atmosphere. The variance here is relatively small, and the cycles are short-term, but we see weather changes linked to these. There is some reason to believe there are longer cycles running as well, concurrently, that may link to longer climate cycles, maybe even be important to ice age cycles. .. .. but what to we know, anyway. We've only been "watching" for a hundred years or so.

geologists recognize volcanic activism that seems to peak in certain epochs of the earth history....15-30 million years ago, 150 million years ago. These would reflect deep core processes of convection to the surface, and cyclical increases in radioactive heat generation explained by the settling of heavier nuclei towards the center, increasing nuclear reactgion rates, and such.

At any rate, volcanism does bring heat to the earth surface, including the ocean floors. Even a 1 degree increase in the global temp at that interface would be a significant factor in the correlations being made today with CO2.

Anybody see any discussion of this in IPCC "science"?

Nope. It's not politically relevant "science". How we gonna tax the Earth's core for generating too much heat?


IN this scenario, CO2 ranks not as a "source" but as a "sink" for heat, It merely holds heat, perhaps reducing the overall flux of heat radiated out.

Nobody has discussed the Van Allen belt of particles as a "blanket" that reflects heat or stores heat. It is in continual flux being recharged at times from solar flares and depleted as radiation neutralizes charges and uncharged particles diffuse out of the magnetic field that traps ions, some settling on the earth. We always get some dust coming down, it's the source of our Beryllium, for example.

UN can't tax the Van Allen Belt, either. UN has to find a fearful monster close enough to humans to scare us into accepting a world tax agency.
 
It's the Ocean, Stupid.

A lot of talk on the Atmosphere being the relevant heat sink with increases in CO2.

Here's a little bit about the Ocean, proportionately speaking.

https://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth


It is presumed that at depth the ocean is filled with 4 degree C water because that's the highest density water. That's why ice floats, folks, and why we don't have undersea glaciers thousands of feet thick worldwide.

salt content affects the specific heat of water, the density, and can determine mixing currents. Our vast ocean currents are thought to be driven by variations in salt content. Pure water melting of the polar ice stores each summer, coming in from big rivers like the Mississippi, and such. Thought to be part of the El Nino/La Nina weather pattern.

So far, our IPCC "science" has simply ignored most of the ocean. Good science would consider not only surface temps but layer temps at 10m, 30m, 50m 100m 250m 500m, 1000m, 2000m and the deeper trenches as well. But particularly useful would be the data within 100m. "waves" of heat propagation have been observed at these depths and linked to super typhoon events.
 
Last edited:
It's Galactic Orbitals, Stupid.

There has been some discussion of the Sun moving along with its spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy, periodically encountering changing fluxes of particulates/clouds/hydrogen and othersuch stuff, and possible effects in changing solar output or the energy flux received on planet earth. Earth occasionally has volcanic events that put enough stuff up there we have a few years of dark "winter". No reason to think the upper atmosphere isn't warm enough, but in the shade down here, it gets cccccold. The galactic "cycle" would potentially be very significant as a driver of earth climate. What we gonna do 'bout that. Can't tax the Milky Way or levy steep fines for environmental contamination. Nope, gotta tax little people somehow.

Here is a tidbit from some real communists, VI Vernadsky and real socialists, not the convenient fascist hijackers of social ideals.... LaRouchians.

https://larouchepac.com/20150520/vernadskian-reconsideration-galactic-cycles-and-evolution
 
Last edited:
babe said:
Any model of climate change or correlations of climate with atmospheric temperatures should include all the contributing heat sources and heat sinks.

A "source" for atmospheric heat supplies heat to the atmosphere, a "sink" removes heat from the atmosphere.

duh..... lessee...... hmmmmmm......

oh yeah, I got it!!!!! The SUN. almost nobody could miss that. What amount of heat comes from the sun? Does that amount vary? Short answer is it is fairly constant with short cycles linked to sunspot activities, which also emit particles that can cause "solar storms" in our upper atmosphere. The variance here is relatively small, and the cycles are short-term, but we see weather changes linked to these. There is some reason to believe there are longer cycles running as well, concurrently, that may link to longer climate cycles, maybe even be important to ice age cycles. .. .. but what to we know, anyway. We've only been "watching" for a hundred years or so.

geologists recognize volcanic activism that seems to peak in certain epochs of the earth history....15-30 million years ago, 150 million years ago. These would reflect deep core processes of convection to the surface, and cyclical increases in radioactive heat generation explained by the settling of heavier nuclei towards the center, increasing nuclear reactgion rates, and such.

At any rate, volcanism does bring heat to the earth surface, including the ocean floors. Even a 1 degree increase in the global temp at that interface would be a significant factor in the correlations being made today with CO2.

Anybody see any discussion of this in IPCC "science"?

Nope. It's not politically relevant "science". How we gonna tax the Earth's core for generating too much heat?


IN this scenario, CO2 ranks not as a "source" but as a "sink" for heat, It merely holds heat, perhaps reducing the overall flux of heat radiated out.

Nobody has discussed the Van Allen belt of particles as a "blanket" that reflects heat or stores heat. It is in continual flux being recharged at times from solar flares and depleted as radiation neutralizes charges and uncharged particles diffuse out of the magnetic field that traps ions, some settling on the earth. We always get some dust coming down, it's the source of our Beryllium, for example.

UN can't tax the Van Allen Belt, either. UN has to find a fearful monster close enough to humans to scare us into accepting a world tax agency.
Click to expand...

One Yellowstone volcano eruption will spew more CO2 in to the air then the last 200 years of humanity.

One more sun spot will increase earth temperature way more then pretend CO2 warming. You could go to 1000 ppm CO2 an 1 single sunspot would warm the earth way more then there "models" predict. 1 sunspot folks that is all. Are the liberal government worshiper gonna try controlling the sun next? Oh yah that is right we are morons right [MENTION=840]fishonjazz[/MENTION].
 
Fish knows nothing. A good bro, nice to folks, cool, sure. Knows nothing.

Hey, Fish, if you're home alone for Christmas, read some of that LaRouche stuff. VI Vernadsky was a Russian scientist with the savvy to survive Stalin, and while finding links in science to support evolution and dialectic progress models generally, he was quite an unusual fellow. He saw light generated by little living cells, and he found reasons to figure there must be some higher order of nature overseeing life processes, something inherent in nature itself, a Life Force. Something with intelligence to recognize need and devise means for the essential materials of life.

A bit of "religion" maybe, without saying the word "God", right under Stalin's nose.
 
this climate change hoax is humanities EPIC obsession with self absorption.
ignoring all other facts that we cannot control in climate models. and only focus on the one thing we can control co2.
for example vulcanic activity, ignore that because humans aint a factor in it.

a classic symptom of virtue signaling.


my 23 year old ford bronco is more environmental friendly then any liberal douche who buys or leases a new electracal vehicle every 3 years.
 
yeah i like fish to.

hope to meat him among other from this board someday. which is now more likely now that America is not under tyrannical rule of Islamic caliphate barrack HUSSEIN!

seems unlikely some of you would come visit me in netherlands or south america!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top