Past global warming similar to today's: Size, duration were like modern climate shift, but in two pulses

December 15, 2014, University of Utah
Sediment cores that were drilled from Wyoming's Bighorn Basin and then sectioned for study are shown at a repository at the University of Bremen, Germany. A study of the cores led by University of Utah geochemist Gabe Bowen found that carbon emissions to the atmosphere during a global warming period almost 56 million years ago were more similar to today's human-caused climate change than previously was believed. Credit: Bianca Maibauer, University of Utah.

The rate at which carbon emissions warmed Earth's climate almost 56 million years ago resembles modern, human-caused global warming much more than previously believed, but involved two pulses of carbon to the atmosphere, University of Utah researchers and their colleagues found.

The findings mean the so-called Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM, can provide clues to the future of modern climate change. The good news: Earth and most species survived. The bad news: It took millennia to recover from the episode, when temperatures rose by 5 to 8 degrees Celsius (9 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit).

"There is a positive note in that the world persisted, it did not go down in flames, it has a way of self-correcting and righting itself," says University of Utah geochemist Gabe Bowen, lead author of the study published today in the journal Nature Geoscience. "However, in this event it took almost 200,000 years before things got back to normal."

Bowen and colleagues report that carbonate or limestone nodules in Wyoming sediment cores show the global warming episode 55.5 million to 55.3 million years ago involved the average annual release of a minimum of 0.9 petagrams (1.98 trillion pounds) of carbon to the atmosphere, and probably much more over shorter periods.

That is "within an order of magnitude of, and may have approached, the 9.5 petagrams [20.9 trillion pounds] per year associated with modern anthropogenic carbon emissions," the researchers wrote. Since 1900, human burning of fossil fuels emitted an average of 3 petagrams per year - even closer to the rate 55.5 million years ago.

Each pulse of lasted no more than 1,500 years. Previous conflicting evidence indicated the lasted anywhere from less than a year to tens of thousands of years. The new research shows atmospheric carbon levels returned to normal within a few thousand years after the first pulse, probably as carbon dissolved in the ocean. It took up to 200,000 years for conditions to normalize after the second pulse.

The new study also ruled as unlikely some theorized causes of the warming episode, including an asteroid impact, slow melting of permafrost, burning of organic-rich soil or drying out of a major seaway. Instead, the findings suggest, in terms of timing, that more likely causes included melting of seafloor methane ices known as clathrates, or volcanism heating organic-rich rocks and releasing methane.

"The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum has stood out as a striking, but contested, example of how 21st-century-style atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup can affect climate, environments and ecosystems worldwide," says Bowen, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Utah.

"This new study tightens the link," he adds. "Carbon release back then looked a lot like human fossil-fuel emissions today, so we might learn a lot about the future from changes in climate, plants, and animal communities 55.5 million years ago."

Bowen cautioned, however, that global climate already was much warmer than today's when the Paleocene-Eocene warming began, and there were no icecaps, "so this played out on a different playing field than what we have today."

This image shows University of Utah geochemist Gabe Bowen working on Wyoming sediment cores at a lab in Germany for a study that showed today's global warming is more similar than had been thought to a climate change episode almost 56 million years ago. Credit: Gabe Bowen, University of Utah.

Sudy co-author Scott Wing, a paleobiologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, adds: "This study gives us the best idea yet of how quickly this vast amount of carbon was released at the beginning of the global warming event we call the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. The answer is just a few thousands of years or less. That's important because it means the ancient event happened at a rate more like human-caused global warming than we ever realized."

Bowen and Wing conducted the study with University of Utah geology and geophysics master's graduate Bianca Maibauer and technician Amy Steimke; Mary Kraus of University of Colorado, Boulder; Ursula Rohl and Thomas Westerhold of the University of Bremen, Germany; Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan; and William Clyde of the University of New Hampshire. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation and the German Research Foundation.

Effects of the Paleocene-Eocene Warming

Bowen says previous research has shown that during the Paleocene-Eocene warm period, there was "enhanced storminess in some areas, increased aridity in other places. We see continent-scale migration of animals and plants, ranges are shifting. We see only a little bit of extinction - some groups of deep-sea foraminifera, one-cell organisms that go extinct at the start of this event. Not much else went extinct."

"We see the first wave of modern mammals showing up," including ancestral primates and hoofed animals," he adds. Oceans became more acidic, as they are now.

"We look through time recorded in those rocks, and this warming event stands out, and everything happens together," Bowen says. "We can look back in Earth's history and say this is how this world works, and it's totally consistent with the expectation that carbon dioxide change today will be associated with these other sorts of change."

The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum also points to the possibility of runaway climate change enhanced by feedbacks. "The fact we have two releases may suggest that second one was driven by the first," perhaps, for example, if the first warming raised sea temperatures enough to melt massive amounts of frozen methane, Bowen says.

Drilling into Earth's Past

The new study is part of a major drilling project to understand the 56-milion-year-old warming episode, which Bowen says first was discovered in 1991. The researchers drilled long, core-shaped sediment samples from two boreholes at Polecat Bench in northern Wyoming's Bighorn Basin, east of Cody and just north of Powell.

A rainbow appears over National Science Foundation-funded drilling site in Wyoming's Bighorn Basin. In a study led by University of Utah geochemist Gabe Bowen, sediment cores drilled at the site revealed a global warming episode almost 56 million years ago resembled today's in terms of the size and duration of carbon releases to the atmosphere. Credit: Elisabeth Denis, Pennsylvania State University.
"This site has been excavated for well over 100 years by paleontologists studying fossil mammals," Bowen says. "It documents that transition from the early mammals we see after the extinction of the dinosaurs to Eocene mammals, which are in groups that are familiar today. There is a great stratigraphic sequence of more than 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) of rocks, from 65 million years ago to 52 million years ago."

The Paleocene-Eocene warming is recorded in the banded, flood-deposit tan and rusted red rock and soil layers of the Willwood formation, specifically within round, gray to brown-gray carbonate nodules in those rocks. They are 2 inches to 0.1 inches diameter.

By measuring carbon isotope ratios in the nodules, the researchers found that during each 1,500-year carbon release, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere declined, indicating two large releases of carbon dioxide or methane, both greenhouse gases from plant material. The decline was three parts per thousand for the first pulse, and 5.7 parts per thousand for the second.

Previous evidence from seafloor sediments elsewhere is consistent with two Paleocene-Eocene carbon pulses, which "means we don't think this is something is unique to northern Wyoming," Bowen says. "We think it reflects a global signal."

What Caused the Prehistoric Warming?

The double-barreled carbon release at the Paleocene-Eocene time boundary pretty much rules out an asteroid or comet impact because such a catastrophe would have been "too quick" to explain the 1,500-year duration of each carbon pulse, Bowen says.

Another theory: oxidation of organic matter - as permafrost thawed, as peaty soils burned or as a seaway dried up - may have caused the Paleocene-Eocene warming. But that would have taken tens of thousands of years, far slower than what the study found, he adds. Volcanoes releasing carbon gases also would have been too slow.

Bowen says the two relatively rapid releases (about 1,500 years each) are more consistent with warming oceans or an undersea landslide triggering the melting of frozen methane on the seafloor and large emissions to the atmosphere, where it became within decades. Another possibility is a massive intrusion of molten rock that heated overlying organic-rich rocks and released a lot of methane, he says.

Explore further: Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions

More information: Two massive, rapid releases of carbon during the onset of the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum, Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2316

Related Stories

Dating an ancient episode of severe global warming

June 15, 2011

Using sophisticated methods of dating rocks, a team including University of Southampton researchers based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, have pinned down the timing of the start of an episode of an ancient ...

Global warming led to dwarfism in mammals—twice

November 2, 2013

Mammal body size decreased significantly during at least two ancient global warming events, a new finding that suggests a similar outcome is possible in response to human-caused climate change, according to a University of ...

Recommended for you

Fish-inspired material changes color using nanocolumns

March 20, 2019

Inspired by the flashing colors of the neon tetra fish, researchers have developed a technique for changing the color of a material by manipulating the orientation of nanostructured columns in the material.

171 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (26) Dec 15, 2014
I think I've said this before many times :P

It's VERY important to be clear on this though. The current trend is almost certainly caused by human industry. And for the sake of argument even if it ISN'T it's stupendously irresponsible and crazy to continue to exacerbate the problem by continuing to pump out gigatons of CO2...this is so obvious it SHOULD go without saying.

And while I've always maintained this won't be an "Earth ending event", I've also maintained it will be EXTREMELY painful for human civilization. It's not something we want to blithely go through if we can help it. It's going to displace millions and has a very real possibility of touching off a regional or even a global nuclear exchange.

I'm hoping we can put down the politics on BOTH sides and come to an honest admission that this IS happening (for whatever reason) AND we need an energy policy that might actually WORK within the next ten years...
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2014
"However, in this event it took almost 200,000 years before things got back to normal."
In a world of extremes, who decides what is normal?
gkam
2.5 / 5 (22) Dec 15, 2014
Dusty does not have a thermometer.
Modernmystic
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2014
"However, in this event it took almost 200,000 years before things got back to normal."
In a world of extremes, who decides what is normal?


I agree. My personal definition is a world where none of the coastal cities that are home to billions of people aren't under water....

I completely reject that there is a "normal" for the climate (within some WIDE ranges of course), so that's why I couch it as more of a preference.

What's your prefrence?
Gimp
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 15, 2014
It is unfortunately not politics on both sides, it's the world against the USA, everyone thinks we're awash in money and we should foot the bill for every countries indiscretions. If, and I say a big if all of this is man-made, then ALL should be willing to make the changes.

But then, who taxed the residents back then and fixed the issue?
dustywells
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2014
I have worked outdoors in extreme(?) cold and heat. From -46C to +48C. It is easier for me to adapt to colder temperatures but when not working my preferred is about 19C to 24C. But my personal preference is not going to significantly affect the weather, the climate, nor what is normal in an ever changing environment.

Plants and animals must adapt or face extinction. That is what drives evolution. Global change has been the norm for over four billion years and will continue so until the end of time or until we learn to move the planet; whichever comes first.

I think that it is hubris to expect the world to stop its natural cycle between cold and hot because humanity has ignorantly urbanized various sea coasts and it is sheer arrogance to believe that we can control the unimaginable energies involved.

That said, I firmly believe that CO2 has a minor (if any) influence in potential anthropogenic change in weather and climate.
rhsthjnty
3.4 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2014

It is unfortunately not politics on both sides, it's the world against the USA, everyone thinks we're awash in money and we should foot the bill for every countries indiscretions.


Gimp. Get your head out of the dirt.
-The US is the leader of the economic and military world. The military part is not because you seed freedom in the rest of the world and destroy evil dictatorships, it's because the US is imperialistic. It's definitely not the leader on environmental issues.
-There are scores of countries who invest more and fare much better in social issues, education, medicine, environmental issues and on and on and on...
bill_testy_75
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2014
Here's what bothers me.
Scientists are still continually contradicting each other on Man caused climate change.
Every other report says the complete opposite of the one before.
When politicians get involved, I get extremely wary.
When they say the solution is for me to give them all of my money and they "promise" that they'll fix the planet. I get even more wary.
Granted. Yes, our climate is doing "something".
We don't understand it. We can't model it, We can barely measure it, but we can "fix it" ? Really?
Who is to say that any measures we take might be orders of magnitude more catastrophic that the natural process?
If we lived on Pangea right now, would we be installing huge staples to keep the continents from shifting?
The label of "denier" is a political tool used to keep people divided. And it's working.
Give us REAL, DOABLE, ACTIONS that we as little people can do every day and stop being the WORST POSSIBLE EXAMPLES.
rho1953
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2014
If the majority of people understood the level of dislocation that would be required to actually cut co2 emissions enough to make any difference, this matter would be over already. There is no practical way to do enough in a timely fashion. The technology doesn't exist, and if the truth about where our standard of living will go was disseminated, it would be flatly rejected by an overwhelming margin. We are going to learn to live with our climate, anything actions we take will by symbolic and more about politics than it is about science. In reality a mass culling of the human herd would be necessary, and if you think doing it in a sneaky matter by starving millions, freezing millions, putting hundreds of millions into perpetual poverty is going to be politically sustainable, you are mad.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2014
It is unfortunately not politics on both sides, it's the world against the USA, everyone thinks we're awash in money and we should foot the bill for every countries indiscretions. If, and I say a big if all of this is man-made, then ALL should be willing to make the changes.

But then, who taxed the residents back then and fixed the issue?

I believe they are, mostly.
The poorer countries object, but then they didn't f** things up, did they?
runrig
4 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2014
If the majority of people understood the level of dislocation that would be required to actually cut co2 emissions enough to make any difference, this matter would be over already. There is no practical way to do enough in a timely fashion. The technology doesn't exist, and if the truth about where our standard of living will go was disseminated, it would be flatly rejected by an overwhelming margin. We are going to learn to live with our climate, anything actions we take will by symbolic and more about politics than it is about science. In reality a mass culling of the human herd would be necessary, and if you think doing it in a sneaky matter by starving millions, freezing millions, putting hundreds of millions into perpetual poverty is going to be politically sustainable, you are mad.

Oh Ok.
We'll not even try then?
Give me strength.

Try reading up about Solar PV.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2014
Where does rho get this?: " The technology doesn't exist, and if the truth about where our standard of living will go was disseminated, it would be flatly rejected by an overwhelming margin."
-----------------------------------------------

Sorry, but you must not be in the utility business. I was, and would like to discuss the alternatives with you, so you know.

Ready?
Gimp
1 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2014
-The US is the leader of the economic and military world. The military part is not because you seed freedom in the rest of the world and destroy evil dictatorships, it's because the US is imperialistic. It's definitely not the leader on environmental issues.
-There are scores of countries who invest more and fare much better in social issues, education, medicine, environmental issues and on and on and on...

Then, please, by all means, MOVE.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2014
The rate at which carbon emissions warmed Earth's climate almost 56 million years ago resembles modern, human-caused global warming
So much for the "It's warming faster than ever before!" mantra from the AGWites. LOL

Melchizedek0001
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2014
"human -made global warming" ???. 1550-1650 A.D (Anno Domini for the illiterate) Little Ice Age because not at all the Sun activity (spots)! Scientists or wizzards -like PhD.M.Mann and IPCC liars -talk on global warming?
Earth Scientist
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 15, 2014
What were the PPM's Co2???? Today it is under 400ppm, so compare it!
No polar caps, high sea level, likely quite nice at the poles, Most everything survived, so what is the problem? did man cause the 50,000,000 year ago warming? Who says that `the current warming (if a reversal has not started) is not normal and that the current similar warming is not "normal", whatever normal is?.. Warming will without a doubt cause an increase in CO2 level! Do you know that most sea shells are are made of CA + CO2 and CA is in very good supply? A CO2 increase + warmer will promote plant growth! Warming does not cause overall droughts, it increases evaporation which results in increased precipitation(what goes up must come down unless it reaches escape velocity!)
This is just a bunch of Fascist/Socialist crap to give governments more control over the populace!
full_disclosure
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 15, 2014
What were the PPM's Co2???? Today it is under 400ppm, so compare it!
No polar caps, high sea level, likely quite nice at the poles, Most everything survived, so what is the problem? did man cause the 50,000,000 year ago warming? Who says that `the current warming (if a reversal has not started) is not normal and that the current similar warming is not "normal", whatever normal is?.. Warming will without a doubt cause an increase in CO2 level! Do you know that most sea shells are are made of CA + CO2 and CA is in very good supply? A CO2 increase + warmer will promote plant growth! Warming does not cause overall droughts, it increases evaporation which results in increased precipitation(what goes up must come down unless it reaches escape velocity!)
This is just a bunch of Fascist/Socialist crap to give governments more control over the populace!


Bingo….scare tactics to facilitate regressive taxation….it's all natural variability.
Alberto_Knox
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2014
the article talks about a "pulse" of CO2 emission. But we are not stopping emissions, not even slowing growth of the rate of burning. Without a technological breakthrough we will continue to increase CO2 output. If it is 15 degrees warmer will YOU be the one to turn off the A/C?

It is good that we in the US and Europe are being more efficient, but it is not nearly enough. How can we convince the "developing economies" to forego the comforts we have? We won't be able to and we won't be able to get our own people to go back to 1920s level technology. the only solution that will work is a technological evolution in power generation.

Fusion might be able to do it, or it might not. Either way it is worth a full effort, a Moon Shot level of research and development to see if it can be done. We don't want our kids looking back in 60 years wishing we had at least tried.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 15, 2014
Alberto, we do not a Moon Shot energy panic. We already have most of the technologies we need today, and just need to implement some and continue to develop the others as we transition over to clean fuels.

And to whomever said: "This is just a bunch of Fascist/Socialist crap to give governments more control over the populace!", I ask "Who imposed the Bush Police State on us?"
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2014
I think I've said this before many times :P

It's VERY important to be clear on this though. The current trend is almost certainly caused by human industry.


Dyson says you don't have near enough data to make that claim. Why is Dyson wrong?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2014
I think I've said this before many times :P

It's VERY important to be clear on this though. The current trend is almost certainly caused by human industry.


Dyson says you don't have near enough data to make that claim. Why is Dyson wrong?


If you'd have read the rest of my statement it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, but you don't really care about having an honest debate, so why should I discuss anything with you?

I'm not being facetious, but very serious. Why should anyone bother to discuss anything with anyone who's only position is that someone with some perceived authority said they were right?

The answer is that they shouldn't...

http://en.wikiped...uthority
Sensible Solutions
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2014
Whenever I read about the well-intentioned activists wanting us to ''do something'' about climate change, I think back to the great idea someone had almost 10 years ago in Florida. They discovered a tree that grew in Australia that dried up swampy areas, and thought that this would be a great way to dry up the Everglades without having to dig an fill so much. So they imported a bunch of melaleuca trees and, sure enough, they sucked up so much water that we had a few million acres more dry land.

Unfortunately, these trees tend to crowd out every other growing thing, and are almost impossible to kill. Even fires just slow them down.

Next, some bright young researcher at one of our universities went to Australia to learn why the same trees didn't proliferate so rapidly down under. They discovered that Australia has a breed of wasps that somehow restrict the propagation of melaleuca trees, and immediately proposed importing the wasps to control the melaleuca.

More to follow
Sensible Solutions
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2014
Part Two: Fortunately, some older and wiser scientists said, ''Hold on one minute. If the wasps restrict the melaleuca, what restricts the overpopulation of the wasps?'' It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

Moral: The Earth goes through changes on a continuous basis. It gets hotter and it gets colder. It was happening millions of years before mankind made our first appearance, and it will continue eons after we are gone. No amount of taxes will change that. The best be can hope for is to have the intelligence and will to adapt.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2014
"human -made global warming" ???. 1550-1650 A.D (Anno Domini for the illiterate) Little Ice Age because not at all the Sun activity (spots)! Scientists or wizzards -like PhD.M.Mann and IPCC liars -talk on global warming?

Yawn...
So what - it was called the Maunder minimum and reduced the TSI by between 0.1 and 0.2%, whilst there were notable volcanic ejections of ash into the Stratosphere.
WTF has that to do with warming whilst the sun is actually waning in activity and the orbital cycle is still in a cooling phase for the planet.
Yes, yes we know -the worlds experts are liars and you know better than them.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2014


Bingo….scare tactics to facilitate regressive taxation….it's all natural variability.

OK then where's the heat coming from?
Given that it's gone on way beyond any natural climate cycle that merely disgorges ocean heat into the atmosphere. In fact the oceans are heating as well. Do you propose that the planet is working up heat to explode?

And no it's not the sun.... despite any hand-waving, it just isn't.
Feel free to provide science that shows it is (TSI not cosmic rays or magnetic flux or f*** DM... they are not W/M^2)
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2014
I think I've said this before many times :P

It's VERY important to be clear on this though. The current trend is almost certainly caused by human industry.


Dyson says you don't have near enough data to make that claim. Why is Dyson wrong?

Why is Dyson right FFS.
Is he omniscient.
Is he your *unimaginary friend*
Are you some sort of fundamentalist, taking one word as the unprovable truth and basing your philosophy on it.
Are you that stupid and desparate?
(Rhetorical of course).

Not with my f***g planet you're not.

PS: One day this particular Troll may actually contribute something on here but I'm not holding my breath and there's only so many times that a person can stomach this idiot making Dyson the subject of every post.
So I wont anymore....ignored.
Ta Ta Shootist
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2014
Moral: The Earth goes through changes on a continuous basis. It gets hotter and it gets colder. It was happening millions of years before mankind made our first appearance, and it will continue eons after we are gone. No amount of taxes will change that. The best be can hope for is to have the intelligence and will to adapt.


Moral: Don't state the bleeding obvious. Point is, this "change" is man-made and therefore can be man-unmade.... or at least mitigated and eventually stopped as it obviously must be to any sentient being.
And taxes will change it in the sense of starting things moving to achieve economies of scale.
bertibus
1.8 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2014
The only technological answer is nuclear energy. Renewables may or may not be viable in the future, but right now they are not.
If you want to lower CO2 emmissions (and by the way, local pollution would benefit too) and are not prepared to accept nuclear power, then you are fundamentally unserious about the issue.
Agomemnon
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2014
I think we should look to life on earth and its evolution.
As such, plants evolved on Earth for much greater concentrations of CO2 than we have today. In fact plants grow better, faster and stronger with less water with higher CO2.
Therefore the aberration of the scary low CO2, it was pretty close to plant asphyxiation levels, should be avoided at all costs.
jamesbraginton
1 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2014
Environmentalism had its day and is now in free fall. But, that won't stop environmentalism-babble. They'll continue, as if they were praying muslims, incessantly to froth their outdated and fraudulent ideas until their last mummified breath. Pathetic but oh SO FUNNY. :-D
gkam
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 15, 2014
"Environmentalism had its day and is now in free fall."
---------------------------------------

That's hilarious. Or tragic.

Get it from Fox? The Enquirer? Karl Rove? Vladimir Putin?
XQZME
1 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2014
Global warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work. If outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is reduced to less than the incoming radiation from the Sun, heat energy will accumulate in the climate system causing rising temperatures.
The models assume CO2 emissions will cause water vapor, the strongest greenhouse gas, to increase in the upper atmosphere, trapping the radiation.
They also assume clouds will trap more radiation. But satellite and weather balloon data shows just the opposite of the climate model predictions.
More outgoing radiation escapes to space as temperatures rise, rather than being trapped as the UN computer modelers believe.
CO2 emissions do not trap much heat and do not cause significant global warming.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2014
Gilp
"Then, please, by all means, MOVE."
Do you seriously believe only Americans post on this forum? I understand that you might not realise this this but there are a LOT of people outside of the USA. In fact there are more people outside of the USA than within it so in terms of probability the odds are a poster isn't by default an American.
imido
Dec 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2014
Great conversations. I am learning alot.

Here's my usual 2 cents, with a different spin: At least they are telling us a "what" caused these changes, previously, mysteriously and theatrically called, "cycles." A change, or cycle must be caused by something. They don't know what the "what" is, if fine.

What the "what" is now, is pretty obvious: There are no other effects on the table, it has to be something we are doing.

CO2, according to my meter, is actually down 10-20ppm from this June. Al Gore never mentioned seasonal variations, so I assume, down is down, we're back to our 2000 levels?

So just to wrap up climate change: Fossil Fuels release ~1/10 of the energy on the Earth that the change in the Sun's does from it's 11 year cycle of min to max solar power outputs. The Sun is the most important driver of the climate, what does 1/10 the Sun variations mean to climate change?
imido
Dec 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
XQZME
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2014
If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause.
If you can't explain the increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLWIR), then you can't explain the cause.
If you can't explain the decrease of 1.5C in the last 8,000 years while CO2 increased 57%, then you can't explain the cause.
If you can't explain the increase in CO2 after the oceans warm in the fall and the decrease in CO2 after the oceans cool in the spring, then you can't explain the cause.
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2014
@imido,
Mona Loa is on top of an increasingly active volcano, and I for one don't believe the politicians that this is a coincidence.
You can believe them if you like. I'll believe the readings, especially the deltas I get from my CO2 meter, after the readings have come to equilibrium from the day's activity.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2014
Alche/Waterdummy said:
@imido,
Mona Loa is on top of an increasingly active volcano, and I for one don't believe the politicians that this is a coincidence.
You can believe them if you like. I'll believe the readings, especially the deltas I get from my CO2 meter, after the readings have come to equilibrium from the day's activity.


Do you really think that others are as dumb as you are? Do you think they would have only one location they measure CO2 at? Take a look at the choices you have here:

http://cdiac.ornl...ents.htm

Should we take the measurements you make in your kitchen as a better source than the multiple scientific sites that are making real measurements? Is your CO2 meter next to the candle under your bowl of water and ice???
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2014
If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause.
If you can't explain the increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLWIR), then you can't explain the cause.
If you can't explain the decrease of 1.5C in the last 8,000 years while CO2 increased 57%, then you can't explain the cause.
If you can't explain the increase in CO2 after the oceans warm in the fall and the decrease in CO2 after the oceans cool in the spring, then you can't explain the cause.

All those items can and have been explained by science (though the claim of a 1.5C drop in the last 8000 years appears to be entirely fictional). Why did you think they couldn't be? The "pause" has been discussed ad nauseam so you probably already know the reasons for it. The increase in OLWIR is explained at http://www.gfdl.n...creases/ .

Contd.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2014
For why reason why we might be cooler than 8000 years ago even though we have more CO2, look up the definition of equilibrium. Hint: we haven't reached equilibrium and have more warming to go (but it appears we may already be warmer than 8000 years ago: http://www.skepti...re3.html ). As for the change in CO2 levels with the change in season, that's well known and understood. In the fall, leaves fall and plants die and microbes cause these to rot, giving off CO2. After May, things start growing again and the CO2 levels drop again (https://scripps.u...-in-may/ ).

You may want to learn something before claiming that the science doesn't understand.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2014
Global warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work.

Climate science isn't based on computer models. The science is based on physics and empirical data. Computer models are, in many ways, superfluous to the science.

And, regardless of your claim, computer models do work quite well (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ). I know many fake skeptics claim they don't work well, but so far no one's been able to show that.
garafiq40
4 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2014
inido: "In my theory theory they were even caused with the same mechanism - the passage of solar system through dark matter cloud at the galactic plane."

Do you even know what dark matter is? It doesn't absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation, including heat. It only influences by gravitation. You are as ignorant and dishonest as all other deniers.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2014
That said, I firmly believe that CO2 has a minor (if any) influence in potential anthropogenic change in weather and climate.
@Dusty
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
perhaps that will help you understand?

Scientists are still continually contradicting each other on Man caused climate change.
Every other report says the complete opposite of the one before
@bill_testy_75
actually, this is predominantly a media thing, not a science thing
you are referring to the "media debate" and the fact that media allow a dissenting opinion equal time regardless of the overwhelming science
If you would stick to following the science and ignore the media BS, you would find that the evidence is overwhelmingly simple and points roughly in the same direction

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 16, 2014
Scientists are still continually contradicting each other on Man caused climate change.
Every other report says the complete opposite of the one before
@bill_testy_75
Here are some links to help you understand the SCIENCE vs the media and their argument
this study is often quoted by anti-science: http://iopscience.../article
they claim science is not about consensus... and they are correct

this study proves that the overwhelming amount of evidence out there all points to AGW, not to the anti-science claims being sponsored by big oil/big$$ corp

it is also proven that there is a well funded organized effort to make you and other scientifically illiterate people confused and take the wrong political side: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
you can read the PO article about it here
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 16, 2014
Scientists are still continually contradicting each other on Man caused climate change.
Every other report says the complete opposite of the one before
@bill_testy_75
I suggest that you take NO one person at their word, and always do your own research... but i also suggest that you require ANYONE posting to supply scientific studies supporting their position published in reputable peer reviewed journals, so that you don't get taken in by crackpots, pseudoscience and idiots, like ALCHE/waterprophet, who continually still lie and get caught
Here is a good start: this site uses studies to support their conclusions
http://www.skepti...dels.htm
also- DO NOT just assume it is correct, always verify the claims with the study... you can also contact the authors if you think otherwise... most reply

watch who is posting what, and look for the supporting evidence and make sure it says what they are trying to say

SCIENCE over politics or conjecture always
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 16, 2014
CO2 emissions do not trap much heat and do not cause significant global warming
@XQZME
there are almost literally dozens of studies that prove you wrong

can you even refute the physics in this study? http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
it helps explain the vicious circle with CO2 and WV, which also directly refutes your claims, btw
It also explains the relationship between CO2, WV and the forcing

If you are going to make claims, especially that are contrary to the physics or science, then you should be providing evidence in the form of a study from a reputable peer reviewed source supporting your conclusions so that everyone can be on the same page

Now, i have given you a study supporting my POV, regarding CO2, WV, the forcing, feedback and directly refuting your post

where is your evidence?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 16, 2014
Here's my usual 2 cents
@ALCHE/crybaby
you haven't learned anything except how to steal data from studies and try to incorporate it into your waterbowl for your CON

Where are ANY of the refutes that I've been asking for, for ANY of the studies that i linked?

you've given NO equivalent studies supporting your position!
refute THESE
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
http://iopscience...4002.pdf
http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

you said you had evidence supporting you and your waterbowl BS, which means that it would refute the above studies...
SO...
WHERE IS IT?
OZGuy
5 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2014
Yet again imido states "In my dark matter theory..."

https://www.astro...erm.html states:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

Does your dark matter "theory" stand up to that simple definition or is it merely an opinion/belief/fantasy? If you believe it does then publish the evidence and once verified we'll all applaud, if not then stop pretending it's a scientific theory.
imido
Dec 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2014
@ZEPHIR
Well, it's just theory
no, its conjecture, not a Theory in the scientific terminology
but supported with similar theories of scientists
except that:
- you've made no valid claims that are substantiated with studies or other science
-you are completely ignoring the actual physics for your special "make believe aw/daw" physics, falsified here: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
- just because you CLAIM it is relevant, doesn't mean it is, because you've not shown any substantiated evidence proving it

and then you make a claim that all science would love to know
Do you even know what dark matter is?

Yes, I know
and again, with no evidence, just some delusional explanation from the dark recesses of your fantasy

a BLOG is not evidence
and throwing together several links and then claiming some tie between them is NOT proof either

there really is a reason you are not published in a reputable journal
read above for why
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 16, 2014
Aaahh... It's the same old game the clowns trying to amuse the Scientists, lets round it up shall we...

From the clown gallery, the usual dumb clutter where they just can't seem to formulate any kind of solution to the real problem of warming facing this planet (let alone understand the science in their feeble little minds) words they sputter that is all so fimiliar like "adapt" or "evolve" springs to mind, cough...cough.. showing their utter inability to comprehend reality.. cough cough... did mama ever tell them, they were born without being conscious of their surroundings... ? lol... don't worry i don't expect an answer to what i most likely know the answer... ;)

Not a real showstopper so far (excpet for the real scientists that swiftly replied with Real Accurate Science:

Thermodynamics, Captain Stumpy, Runrig and the rest Again Well done and Thank you for your Comments, it brings real Value to this site) cont.

HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2014
As for the rest:

bill_testy_75

Clearly mr Hillbilly here cannot distinguish between real science and the media cow, o but of course, it's easier to read and understand the news headlines that the real science being done, which of course says a lot on his ability to understand science.. ;) keep it up, i expect some even dumber comments from you in future.

ubavontuba (no circus is complete without a dab of stupidness fromt his clown)

Earth Scientist (A bold claim for short guy with krusty hair and a big rednose up front) but hey it makes it all the more hilarious, bring on some more stupid comments, we need to spice up this sitcom.

cont.
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2014
Shootist (shoots himself in the foot... yet again) ;)
Sensible Solutions (but then why did you throw all your sense out the window..gotta love this clown's nick)

Agomemnon (the usual clutter, did not really amuse me today)
jamesbraginton (ahh haven't seen this clown before, might have missed a few posts, but lets see if he can add some humour to the show)

imido, another newish clown, looks like the circus is hiring ! ding ding ding... We welcome new entertainment (escpecially when we can put some shine on their red clown noses)

a...a....a.... last but not least , don't worry i did not forget, waterpoofet (well again... his 2 cent's is well.... really not worth 2 cent's (C'mon where's the spunk u put into your previous posts, and old clown that's not delivering, and u know how i like to shine big red noses...you can do better than that! Some of the new clowns might just take your place if you don't get your act together ! and bring back Algorrilicale already !...
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2014
HeloMenlo: Thanks for pointing out the absurdity and humor in the denier's posts. You gave me a good laugh at your ability to point out their lack of understanding and lack of logic in their posts. I can point out their lack of science, but I don't have your knack of adding the humor of their lack of logic. Great work.
Consultofactus
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2014
If you consider that over >99% of the Earth is a ball of intensely hot material covered by an ever so thin crust/lithosphere (5-70Km out of 6,380Km) it's amazing that the mantle doesn't play an even larger role in than it does in changing the environment at the surface and atmosphere. Of course the fact that ~70% of the surface is hidden below an average of 3Km of sea water keeps much of this activity out of human sight, changes in mantle dynamics may play a larger part in climate than anyone ever anticipated.
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2014
My pleasure Thermo, i just can't can't help spotlighting those who comment outrageously.
Thank You for your valuable contributions.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2014
If you consider that over >99% of the Earth is a ball of intensely hot material covered by an ever so thin crust/lithosphere (5-70Km out of 6,380Km) it's amazing that the mantle doesn't play an even larger role in than it does in changing the environment at the surface and atmosphere. Of course the fact that ~70% of the surface is hidden below an average of 3Km of sea water keeps much of this activity out of human sight, changes in mantle dynamics may play a larger part in climate than anyone ever anticipated.

No they don't, as your statement that "~70% of the surface is hidden below an average of 3Km of sea water keeps much of this activity out of human sight" laughably tries to deny.
We are looking at heat .... which rises? yes, or are you denying that undeniable? (yes, yes thermohaline, I know). Heat would overcome the density changes undergone via salinity and we would see warm currents rising to heat surface waters. They don't. Even heat from the Atlantic ridge
Consultofactus
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2014
@runrig The article states

"The new study also ruled as unlikely some theorized causes of the warming episode, including an asteroid impact, slow melting of permafrost, burning of organic-rich soil or drying out of a major seaway. Instead, the findings suggest, in terms of timing, that more likely causes included melting of seafloor methane ices known as clathrates, or volcanism heating organic-rich rocks and releasing methane."

My post merely echoes that postulate and amplifies the point made by the article that looking outside of Earth for causes of rapid archaic climate change caused by impactors may be overlooking what is under our feet. Man, you deniers sure have a problem with science!
imido
Dec 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2014
Consultofactus claimed
If you consider that over >99% of the Earth is a ball of intensely hot material covered by an ever so thin crust/lithosphere (5-70Km out of 6,380Km) it's amazing that the mantle doesn't play an even larger role in than it does in changing the environment at the surface and atmosphere.
U missed the crust's insulating properties adding thermal resistivity, ie reason the mantle is still hot (& fluid) but only 'qualitatively' "intense" - allowing lighter crust to float nicely. No evidence of sizable thermals other than minor volcanoes, hot springs & 'smokers'.

Consultofactus went on
Of course the fact that ~70% of the surface is hidden below an average of 3Km of sea water keeps much of this activity out of human sight, changes in mantle dynamics may play a larger part in climate than anyone ever anticipated.
Thermal flow adding to atmospheric quiescent state (climate) is well known also integrated well. Burning fossil fuels FAR greater !
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2014
Consultofactus claimed
My post merely echoes that postulate and amplifies the point made by the article that looking outside of Earth for causes of rapid archaic climate change caused by impactors may be overlooking what is under our feet
No. It hasnt been overlooked, it has been examined for decades, prob longer than you have lived. CO2's thermal properties have also been known for >100yrs and NEVER refuted. Unfortunately there are many uneducated who have never had opportunity to be apprised of combinatorial complexity in relation to the many properties of statistical mechanics, specific heat, etc

Consultofactus blurted uneducated idiocy
Man, you deniers sure have a problem with science!
No. You have the problem YOU suffer from lack of interest or opportunity to get a sound education in physics & possibly not your fault as some high school physics training is not ideal, 1st & 2nd year uni physics with its prerequisite in calculus is absolutely ESSENTIAL !
imido
Dec 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2014
Consultofactus muttered an oddity
Huh! Who woulda thought that a feature that contains ~85% of the latent surface heat of the Earth could affect the climate!
What the f..k is "Latent Surface Heat" ?

U have heard of "Specific Heat" ?
http://en.wikiped...capacity

& helpful "latent heat of fusion (& vapourisation)" re that 70% of avg 3Km depth !
http://en.wikiped...f_fusion
http://en.wikiped...rization

What the heck is your presumably made up term "latent surface heat" actually mean ?

Science please, not random mixture of terms to impress the uneducated as please be aware. many here are educated & some like myself with multiple university qualification crossing disciplines...

Reply please, don't stress, take your time, but be pertinent (pedantic) if U so wish ;-)

Sure I asked U this before but U "lamed" out...

Man, U; philistines, bogans, rednecks & idle obfuscators sure have a problem with science!
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2014
imido claimed
Thermal flow is just a few watts per square meter, but the heat flux from underwater volcanoes is indeed much higher and it can also change much more rapidly
Have asked U previously to quantify essentials of your theory but, U walked !

Now I have your attention again, pray tell - what is quantification; region, energy, effect on local currents vis a vis - integration of contribution to current changes from (small) regions of thermal outflow & in conjunction with specific heat of water (very high) & why the key indicator of higher thermal atmospheric energy is immense increase in ice melting whilst oceans only warmed marginally - ie Not particularly likely if sizable amount of heat came from below oceans which is ~ avg 3Kms below ice & what about massive loss of glacial ice mass which is even higher up the crust way above sea level.

(doh) Not much geothermal heat in upper mountains with glaciers !

There are SO many details U miss to gain credence !
Consultofactus
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2014
@Mike_Massen You apparently have me confused with some other poster. I never said

"Huh! Who woulda thought that a feature that contains ~85% of the latent surface heat of the Earth could affect the climate!" nor did I mention anything about burning fossil fuel. What are you on?

Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 16, 2014
Consultofactus has clearly lost it badly (sigh)
@Mike_Massen You apparently have me confused with some other poster. I never said
"Huh! Who woulda thought that a feature that contains ~85% of the latent surface heat of the Earth could affect the climate!" nor did I mention anything about burning fossil fuel. What are you on?
You seem to have forgotten or are you lying or suffering cognitive decline as U age as you DID say above on Oct 25th, 2014 HERE:-
http://phys.org/n...ere.html

I never claimed you were talking about fossil fuels, I ADDED to your comment with para:-
"Thermal flow adding to atmospheric quiescent state (climate) is well known also integrated well. Burning fossil fuels FAR greater !"

Which was in response to your sentence:-
"..Of course the fact that ~70% of the surface is hidden below an average of 3Km.."

Context..!

What R U on - selective memory inhibition drugs, drink too much, smoke too much weed ?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 16, 2014
@runrig My post merely echoes that postulate and amplifies the point made by the article that looking outside of Earth for causes of rapid archaic climate change caused by impactors may be overlooking what is under our feet. Man, you deniers sure have a problem with science!

Err I'm no denier my friend.
I suggest you look at some of my postings.
I was applying the truth of there being NO climate driver within the Earth NOW.
Of itself.
The Earth receives energy from the Sun and that's it, TSI varying by orbital characteristics with feedback from albedo and CO2 source/sinking and atmospheric temp driven H2O content
Volcanism is transient and not a driver.
Neither is geothermal, though yes in the past.
Likewise impactors.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2014
Could you please provide evidence for .....

this heating could be caused with dark matter, accelerating the decay of radioisotopes inside of Earth mantle and marine water.

If you cant and it's just an "hypothesis", then it's worthless.
We have ~150 years of unarguable empirical science that pins the blame squarely and unequivocally on anthro CO2.
Causation physics and correlation
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 16, 2014
Thermal flow adding to atmospheric quiescent state (climate) is well known also integrated well. Burning fossil fuels FAR greater
Thermal flow is just a few watts per square meter, but the heat flux from underwater volcanoes is indeed much higher and it can also change much more rapidly.

No it isn't it's negligible....
From http://en.wikiped...t_budget

"Estimates of the total heat flow from Earth's interior to surface span a range of 43 to 49 TW (TW = terawatt = 10^12 watts). The closest estimate is 47 TW, an average crust heat flow of 91.6 mW/m2, and is based on more than 38,000 measurements. The respective mean heat flows of continental and oceanic crust are 70.9 and 105.4 mW/m2."

Milliwatts!
SURFIN85
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2014
I for one have switched to a new dishwashing detergent, Ecover (hypoallergenic). These new products mean I don't have to use hot water to cut grease on dirty dishes. That means saving energy. You're welcome.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2014
And no it's not the sun.... despite any hand-waving, it just isn't.
Feel free to provide science that shows it is (TSI not cosmic rays or magnetic flux or f*** DM... they are not W/M^2)


Why is the only thing that matters to you TSI? Oh, because that's what the current models tell you to believe.

There is plenty of evidence for solar forcing, specifically in the oceans (which are the main drivers of climate).

http://www.scienc...14.short
http://adsabs.har...63..135L
http://link.sprin...00139433
http://www.scienc...98000882
http://www.scienc...49.short
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2014
I think I've said this before many times :P

It's VERY important to be clear on this though. The current trend is almost certainly caused by human industry.


Dyson says you don't have near enough data to make that claim. Why is Dyson wrong?


If you'd have read the rest of my statement it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, but you don't really care about having an honest debate, so why should I discuss anything with you?

I'm not being facetious, but very serious. Why should anyone bother to discuss anything with anyone who's only position is that someone with some perceived authority said they were right?

The answer is that they shouldn't...

http://en.wikiped...uthority


Exactly right.
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2014
C'mon, imido... i know u want that award... reveal your inner bafoon and claim what's rightfully yours...! (gonna be tough consultofactus really showed his entheusiasm and will to anihalate any rivals, i just about made up my mind, however you only need to show us that you can dumber and it's yours !
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2014
Part Two: Fortunately, some older and wiser scientists said, ''Hold on one minute. If the wasps restrict the melaleuca, what restricts the overpopulation of the wasps?'' It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

Moral: The Earth goes through changes on a continuous basis. It gets hotter and it gets colder. It was happening millions of years before mankind made our first appearance, and it will continue eons after we are gone. No amount of taxes will change that. The best be can hope for is to have the intelligence and will to adapt.


An argument from ignorance is probably the worst kind. Well, except for the argument from stupidity. Can't decide which this is.....
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2014
I think we should look to life on earth and its evolution.
As such, plants evolved on Earth for much greater concentrations of CO2 than we have today. In fact plants grow better, faster and stronger with less water with higher CO2.
Therefore the aberration of the scary low CO2, it was pretty close to plant asphyxiation levels, should be avoided at all costs.


The is a good example of the latter argument.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 16, 2014
Consultofactus has clearly lost it badly (sigh)
@Mike_Massen You apparently have me confused with some other poster. I never said
"Huh! Who woulda thought that a feature that contains ~85% of the latent surface heat of the Earth could affect the climate!" nor did I mention anything about burning fossil fuel. What are you on?
You seem to have forgotten or are you lying or suffering cognitive decline as U age as you DID say above on Oct 25th, 2014 HERE:-
http://phys.org/n...ere.html
...?


Consultofactus Obfuscatus...I really thought i'd be keeping that special 2 brain cell award for the end of December, however i guess i won't be sparing it, the award most likely will go to You, (cough...cough.. that is after we actually verified that there is actually 2 brain cells left in that hollow skull of his..cough...) Imido see if you can anihilate the competition ! Make me proud, i want to see them big shiny noses... ;) !
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2014
Global warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work. If outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is reduced to less than the incoming radiation from the Sun, heat energy will accumulate in the climate system causing rising temperatures.
The models assume CO2 emissions will cause water vapor, the strongest greenhouse gas, to increase in the upper atmosphere, trapping the radiation.
They also assume clouds will trap more radiation. But satellite and weather balloon data shows just the opposite of the climate model predictions.
More outgoing radiation escapes to space as temperatures rise, rather than being trapped as the UN computer modelers believe.
CO2 emissions do not trap much heat and do not cause significant global warming.


And this, an example of the former.

Quite the group posting in this article.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (11) Dec 16, 2014

Why is the only thing that matters to you TSI? Oh, because that's what the current models tell you to believe.

There is plenty of evidence for solar forcing, specifically in the oceans (which are the main drivers of climate).


Scroof:
All those links relate to climate changes due to variation in circulation patterns (ocean/atmosphere linkage) - which you should know by now I also maintain.

Yes, sorry, TSI is the only thing that can alter climate in the long term or the back-radiation of it. Whether that's caused by orbital changes or some supposed long-term variation of the Sun's output. Even the MM had too small a reduction in TSI (W/M^2) and it's resultant changes were likely caused by disproportionate UV reduction and less heating in the Stratosphere (a theory that your last link supports).
The 3rd one BTW is the M cycle.
imido
Dec 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2014
Have asked U previously to quantify essentials of your theory
My theories are based on logical arguments, these quantitative ones may be misleading (as the proponents of Ptolemy's epicycle model apparently remember well). Until the binary arguments work well, these more finely divided should work also - but not vice-versa. Even formal math is based on logical theorems, but not vice-versa. This is just the problem of contemporary science - it just calculates, but it doesn't ask logical questions - so it's predestined to repeat the Ptolemy's mental errors.
Zephyr your "theories" are nothing. Empty gobblygook. Stringing together a bunch of sciency-sounding words is not formulating a theory.

How have you managed to keep this particular sock-puppet going so long? I would have expected it to be deleted already.
OZGuy
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2014
imido you have NO theories only beliefs and conjectures. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you like BUT STOP trying to legitimise these opinions by inappropriately calling them theories. You have been informed many times what the word theory means when used in scientific references. Your inability/unwillingness/arrogance to learn does nothing to improve your reputation on this forum.
imido
Dec 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2014
@HeloMenelo
Thanks for the input... and the sense of humor! LOVED it!
it is a gift of yours: also reminds me of the funny side of the denier group and the humor of the situation. I APPRECIATE it! THANKS
it renews my faith in humanity.

& imido isn't new... it is ZEPHIR as yet another sock puppet incarnation spreading the message of his faith in daw/aw

Deniers of what?
@ZEPHIR/imido
1- the science
2- the ACTUAL evidence of AGW and climate change (not the dreamed up links you have)
3- in your case, Z... the denier of anything mainstream because it has spurned your falsified faith
If you have arguments, just disprove me
people have been doing that for years... still hasn't changed your tune zephir!
in fact, it made you WORSE
FACT: you believe in a falsified set of conjectures
falsified by THIS study: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf among MANY others!

this makes you a religious acolyte proselytizing for your faith,
NOT pushing science
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2014
Thanks heaps to the real science enthusiasts & devotees of the evidentiary nature of these issues, fortunately more than their used to be :-)

Suggested improvement in policy for phys.org/ScienceX re commenters:-

Only those that have confirmed identify/real email/qualifications should be allowed to vote & also their reports of abuse postings should be given greater weighting than anonymous plebes who disrupt the discipline of the Scientific method as our higher ideal:-
https://en.wikipe...c_method

Democracy is a grand ideal in general but, only really works when there is a well accepted minimal level of appropriate education. On a Science forum such imperative for a healthy base education is more important but, not the sole rationale for credence, above all confirming ones identity should be Primary - if at least to counter defamation/libel which this site could be casually entertaining from the mindless automata & paid posters who can barely type !
imido
Dec 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2014
Do we observe the heat content anomaly and the heating of continental ice from the bottom?

Yes, because water has greater warming capacity and the warmer water trapped below the halocline acting on the bottom of the ice-floe tongue can melt it at a temp of even -2C.
Does the speed of warming of oceans differs from speed of atmosphere warming?

It will vary, not least because of the ENSO/PDO phases, but yes, as solar SW is absorbed by the oceans FIRST and then the oceans heat the atmosphere, Not the other way around. Yes, land warms air .... but it also massively cools in - err, in winter.
Don't we observe the global warming hiatus of atmosphere in contrary to marine water?

Yes, because of the above.

cont
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2014
cont

Do we observe the circumpolar heat streams in marine water and heat water at shelfs?

?????

Shouldn't the thin Antarctic ice melt faster than this thick coastal one?

Ice in contact with water will melt more quickly. If you mean sea-ice - it does. all of it melts back to the coast during the SH summer.

Do we observe the lag of CO2 concentrations after global temperatures?

That is the natural mechanism - but just not now. Err, it's why it's called AGW. Check out the "A" word. And separate cause from effect.

Shouldn't the Arrhenius mechanism of GW be saturated already?

No, because of path-length. Check out the BL law (Beer-Lambert).
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2014
Do we observe the global warming at the Earth only or also at another bodies of solar system?
Actually, more are cooling.
Don't we observe the changes of interstellar wind across solar system?
Of course we do - the sun is a dynamic, ever changing ball of plasma.
Do we experience the fast change of magnetic field, the period of increased geovolcanic activity?
What does this even mean?
Doesn't Yellowstone release too much He-3 in recent period?
No.
Do we observe the changes in rotational speed of planet and its core, the changes in excentricity of Moon?
No, not in correlation with each other.
Do we observe the increased frequency of impactors at Jupiter, Sun and another bodies?
No.
Doesn't the frequency of impactors increase once we get into galactic plane?
Maybe, not enough evidence to judge.
Didn't we observe, how the neutrino flux affects the speed of radioactive decay of many elements?
No.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2014
Don't we have links of solar cycle and the climate at the Earth?
Of course we do, a small change of output from the sun will correlate to a large change in the amount of energy received by the Earth, thus affecting the climate. What is funny about this statement Zephyr, is that evidence suggests the sun's output has fallen while at the same time Earth's temperature has risen. Doesn't that tell you something?
Don't we have corellations of mutual position of planets to climatic cycles?
NO. Even if there was some correlation, correlation is not causation.
Do we observe the fluctuations of speed of light and gravitational constant, the changes of iridium kilogram and meter prototypes?
Gobblygook. Strings together sciency-sounding words like they have meaning. YOU ARE A QUACK!
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2014
All those links relate to climate changes due to variation in circulation patterns (ocean/atmosphere linkage) - which you should know by now I also maintain.

Right, the only difference is I think the Sun's solar cycle forces these circulation changes, accompanied with the Sun's torque perturbations as well as the M cycles. Influx of fresh water also play a role in this.

Why do you think the circulation patterns change?

BTW, I made a prediction over a month ago that is, for now, coming true:

"If you want a specific prediction: once the PDO regime switches to "warm" again the drought stricken southwest will start to receive above average rainfall amounts."

Now this wasn't expected to happen until around 2016. This to me means that increased GHGs not only influence the severity of weather, but also leads to faster 'state' changes in our climate systems. The latter is not very welcoming considering we appear to be headed for a grand solar minima.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2014
Why do you think the circulation patterns change?


Good question:
This last 10 years or so the meteorological community has come to realise that the atmosphere does not stop at the Tropopause, at least as far linked planetary circulation is concerned.

There is now the observations and computing power to model the processes that take place in the Strat ... namely MT (mountain torque) events that cause large up-welling waves that punch through the Trop and "break" (as a sea-wave would do) and large/several of these events can/do disrupt/destroy the Strat PV. PV being the polar vortex that forms in the hemisphere's winter. This is primarily a NH phenomenon as the Antarctic PV is too strong and there is a lack of mountains.
Now this effect can be achieved another way....
The PV is a direct consequence of the meridional DeltaT.
The greater the O3 present and the UV intensity on it, then that DeltaT will be stronger (winter - so NP in shade as far S as ~67deg N.

cont
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2014
cont

A 0.2% fall in TSI may mean a fall of ~20% in UV intensity = weaker warming and a weaker meridional T grad = weaker Strat PV = easier to disrupt by Trop waves.
Also a wave can be initiated from the top (~ 0.1mb) and down-well.
When the PV disrupts E'ly winds develop and reach the surface to form HP. Divergent winds then cause Arctic air out to far southern climes (this all wintertime - as Strat winds are E'ly anyway in Summer - Delta T reversed).
Should this be a chronic event (vis MM) then ocean circulation would couple - hence (perhaps) a stronger NAO (LP in the Iceland area) which would drive the NAD (warm water) into the Barents sea to free ice there.
Now there is a strong correlation in the build-up of Eurasian snowcover in Oct and cold Euro/E States winters. Now thought to be associated in more open waters in the Siberian seas (more moisture available in late Autumn).
So Sun/Atm/Ocean coupling ... but NOT a sig change in total TSI and therefore ave global temps.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2014
This last 10 years or so the meteorological community has come to realise that the atmosphere does not stop at the Tropopause, at least as far linked planetary circulation is concerned.


Agreed. We also have come to find that the Sun's influence on the atmosphere also includes 'magnetic portals' called flux transfer events (FTE).
http://www.nasa.g...FVCvF8uc
http://science.na...ct_ftes/

Also, the magnetosphere can be 'bent' allowing more particles to enter the atmosphere inducing more lightning.
http://phys.org/n...-uk.html

The point of all of this is we now know the Sun's magnetic influence can extend into the Troposphere, hence my reasoning that our climate cycles are heavily forced by the Sun's magnetic cycles, aka the solar cycles.
dustywells
5 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2014
@pandora4real
Or require real IDs, like only linking through FB. We could deal with them if they weren't posting as anonymous cowards.
That sounds like a threat, and remember that it can work both ways. We don't need the AGW and the skeptics beating down each others' doors.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2014
dustywells misunderstood
That sounds like a threat, and remember that it can work both ways. We don't need the AGW and the skeptics beating down each others' doors
Huh ? It would wrong & inappropriate for the forum admins to disclose to members the id's of other members, doh not wanted.

Forum admins would make a decision of the id of applicants based upon the level of identification offered & act accordingly & OBVIOUSLY never disclose that. I for one go by my own name & my details can be easily found, Eg. I live in Perth, Western Australia, in fact I even posted my uni student number earlier.

Which raises the question re YOUR incomplete idea, if IDs were disclosed, who would we have most to fear from then ?

Scientists who accept AGW is real beating down the doors of uneducated deniers or bogan/redneck uneducated deniers with an axe to grind beating down the doors of those versed in Science ?

Should were therefore be really concerned about U dustywells !

Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2014
Scroofinator with a wild incomplete idea
Agreed. We also have come to find that the Sun's influence on the atmosphere also includes 'magnetic portals' called flux transfer events (FTE).
Don't U think it has already been checked, just how much energy across the whole spectra reaches earth & under what conditions ?

If U can find quantified references & post them then & only then & IF the energy is comparable to that retained by way of increased thermal resistivity of greenhouse gases such as CO2 then U might have a basis for discussion, until then U are 'not on the money' or even near it.

Eg. Look at Mars:-
- Further from sun
- 95% CO2
- Only 0.07% of earths atmosphere - almost vacuum !
- Negligible water & water vapour

Yet day time temps in the shade can reach 20-35 deg C !

IOW. The thermal resistivity issue re CO2 in Mars & the numbers correlate well with the thermal resistivity re CO2 on earth as Adding to local heat retained ie Driving up temperature.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2014
Seeing reference to cold fusion prompts me to remind some that cold fusion happens so very easily however, amount of energy released is below that used to create it - even normal temp. press. (NTP) Sandia labs depends what you start with.

ie U can purchase commercial device producing cold fusion reaction on demand with an electrical current, someone holding it between his fingers, the "Neutristor" RHS:-

https://en.wikipe...enerator

Point is, all "nucleonic" events have probabilistic basis. In reference to Selena/imido/Consultofactus' proposition my retort is "so what" there is bound to be "some" fusion at some level in & more likely below crust also accumulating He3 & He4 for billions of yrs given environment but, subject to chaotic release.

Question is re thermal energy affecting climate, so far there is NO indication the thermal upwelling of ALL geothermal heat sources comes anywhere enough to affect climate.

Is there any comparative DATA ?
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2014
@HeloMenelo
Thanks for the input... and the sense of humor! LOVED it!
it is a gift of yours: also reminds me of the funny side of the denier group and the humor of the situation. I APPRECIATE it! THANKS
it renews my faith in humanity.


Glad you enjoy the humour Captain, clowns will be clowns, i only give them the exposure they deserve, after all isn't that what a circus is about.

Thank You for your contributions Captain Stumpy.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
Actually, more are cooling
Which ones *snip*? Do you have some proof for your claim?


Well, let us look at your 11 cites shall we. It is the usual gish-gallop from you, of course, but I have caught you out using cites in a pile like this before, when none of the cites you linked to supported your position in any way. SO, cite #1: http://usatoday30...ot_x.htm "A New Storm on Jupitor Hints at Climate Change" is an article discussing the emergence of a new red spot dubbed "Red Spot Jr." Quoting the article "The movement of heat from the equator to Jupiter's south pole is expected to stop at 34 degrees southern latitude, where Red Spot Jr. is forming." and "This will create a big wall and stop the mixing of heat and airflow, the thinking goes". So no global warming there, and no support for your position.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
Cite #2 http://www.scienc...1036.htm is a 2008 article in Science Daily titled "Jupiter: Turbulent Storms May Be Sign Of Global Climate Change" wherein they discuss the turbulence in Jupitor's atmosphere. Quoting the article "whether or not this is a sign of global warming, the turbulence does seem to be spawning new spots." They go on to discuss the emergence of a 3rd red spot, and note that "The UC Berkeley team will work with the amateur astronomy community to investigate the possible origin of this turbulence, which is not understood." It discusses the postulates of Dr. P Marcus at UC Berkley "that Jupiter is in the midst of global climate change that will alter temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Celsius, getting warmer near the equator and cooler near the south pole." So not global warming. Equatorial warming that might or might not be happening, and are related to changes in the depths of Jupiter. So doesn't support your wild conjecture.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
Your cite#3 is a real laugh! http://sites.agu.org/ is a notice from the American Geophysical Union (AGU) regarding a meeting for December 15 - 19 2014 in San Francisco and notes four "News Items" in point form:

Status Quo for Science Funding in Omnibus Bill
West Antarctic melt rate has tripled
Small volcanic eruptions could be slowing global warming
Worldwide ship traffic up 300 percent since 1992

What, exactly, does this have to do with
Do we observe the global warming at the Earth only or also at another bodies of solar system?
as you have stated above? What do you do Zephyr, just copy random cites from Google and hope no one checks?

BTW, how do you get away with condensing your cites? The admins here tend to frown on people like you circumventing their forum rules. I suppose that's why you get banned all the time.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
Cite#4 http://www.scienc...ys.shtml "Global Warming Detected on Triton". a 1998 article from Scienceagogo. Well , looky there, maybe you have a cite that primae facie supports your wild conjecture. Lets look at it shall we? From the article "At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."" Well all right, looking good! Again, from the article "There are two possible explanations for the moon's warmer weather. One is that the frost pattern on Triton's surface may have changed over the years, absorbing more and more of the sun's warmth. The other is that changes in reflectivity of Triton's ice may have caused it to absorb more heat." Ah, a planet specific issue then. Still doesn't really support you, but I will give you this one.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
Cite #5 https://student.s...nce.org/ is a webpage for The Student Society for Science, which is a part of the Society for Science website. They claim to be "organization dedicated to public engagement in scientific research and education. Our vision is to promote the understanding and appreciation of science and the vital role it plays in human advancement: to inform, educate, and inspire." Hey I like that! But,, to the point, the page you link is a newspage announcing the "Broadcom MASTERS 2014 Winners Announced" none of whom are nominated for anything related to planetary science, and then goes on to list a number of "News Stories for Students", none of which are related to planetary science.

So, just filler. A lie by any other name remains a lie Zephyr. Score, for those keeping track, is 4 cites that offer no support vrs one that might. Is this the way you come up with all of your bs "theories" Zephyr?
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
Cite #6, http://store.disc...=2470763 is a link to the Discovery Channel Store site. While I appreciate knowing that there is a 90% off winter sale for Discovery Channel merchandise. I fail to see how that supports your statement that
Do we observe the global warming at the Earth only or also at another bodies of solar system?
Maybe the 90% off sale warms your cockles, and they are as large as a planet?

That's 1 for, 5 not. And 3 of the 5 have nothing, what so ever, to do with your statement that
Do we observe the global warming at the Earth only or also at another bodies of solar system?
Do you understand what a liar is Zephyr?
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
Cite #7 http://www.space....sts.html is a 2002 article from Space.com titled "Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists". Hey hey, another good one maybe?

"In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit."

Looks good so far!

"The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years; and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees."

Ah, again, doesn't really support you, but close enough. That's 2 for, 5 not.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
Cite #8 http://news.bbc.c...6474.stm a 2005 article from the BBC about Mars. Well, at least it's about a planet! From the article "show recently formed craters and gullies.
The agency's scientists also say that deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near the planet's south pole have shrunk for three summers in a row.
They say this is evidence to suggest climate change is in progress." Climate change, ok so far so good! "Such gullies might have formed when frozen carbon dioxide, trapped by windblown sand during winter, vaporised rapidly in spring, releasing gas that made the sand flow as a gully-carving fluid" Oh, becoming summer in the south. You do know that Mars has seasons, right Zephyr? ""To see new gullies and other changes in Mars' surface features on a time span of a few years presents us with a more active, dynamic planet than many suspected," said Nasa's Michael Meyer" So, not warming, rather it's an active planet. Can't give you this one, 2 for 6 not.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
Cite #9 http://www.nature...2-5.html is a 2007 Nature article titled "Mars hots up - Dust storms and dark rocks are making the red planet hotter." from the article: "measurements of the brightness of the planet's surface show that the thermometer has ratcheted up some 0.65 °C over a few decades." A big change indeed! ""The two processes that lift dust are being enhanced by the darkening of the surface, and those are the processes that darken the surface in the first place," says Fenton." Interesting, a feedback loop related to surface scouring by dust devils. Still, nothing to do with dark matter, but a mark to the good none the less. That's 3 for, 6 not.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2014
Cite # 10 http://errorhelp....%2Fnafqv brings up a 404 error. Still want to know how you sneak by the tinyurls Zephyr. 3 for, 7 not.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2014
Cite #11 - http://www.thegua...loration is a 2006 article from the Guardian titled Venus: the hot spot and is an article discussing the differences between Venus and Earth and why it is that Venus ended up so different from Earth. Nothing, at all, to do with global warming, or global environment in any way.

So here we are, 8 have nothing to do with your claim, and 3 talk about some form of global warming on 1 planet, 1 dwarf planet, and 1 moon. Confirmation bias much Zephyr?
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2014
Don't U think it has already been checked, just how much energy across the whole spectra reaches earth & under what conditions ?

You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. The climate cycles are linked to the magnetic cycles, not the overall energy forced into the system. If the Sun forces the oceans, then by default it influences the climate. The energy doesn't change, but the transfer of that energy does.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2014
Do you have some proof for your claim?
Well, probably more than you have shown for your claims, and such as there is is related to solar activity over the last few decades. The sun has shown a slight cooling trend (Scafetta 2006 http://www.acrim....006.pdf) Most planetary bodies in the solar system have no, or very little, atmosphere, such that solar activity will be the dominant arbiter of temperature on their surfaces. As the sun's activity has fallen slightly, it stands to reason that the temperature at the surface of most planetary bodies would also fall slightly.

Conjecture on my part Zephyr. The difference between us is that I can admit that - you, on the other hand, attempt to hide your pre-conceived notions through the misuse of cites and gish gallop.

In other words, you lie Zephyr.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2014
I'm not talking about Sun, but about solar system as a whole. These effects cannot be explained with variable activity of Sun.
this, which is in answer to this
Don't we observe the changes of interstellar wind across solar system?

Of course we do - the sun is a dynamic, ever changing ball of plasma.
makes me shake my head. The link he uses (see here: http://www.scienc...114.htm) is a Science Daily article discussing a possible explanation for a possible finding of the IBEX satellite that "the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect due to the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble." It has nothing to do with what you are claiming Zephyr. Confirmation bias, again.
philstacy9
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2014
Someday politics will lose interest and global warming will be ignored like the rain forest.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
Do we observe the increased frequency of impactors at Jupiter, Sun and another bodies? No.
Yes (1, 2)
Tiny urls again! How DO you do that?
#1: http://cosmictusk...gnitude/ a 2010 blog entry at The Cosmic Tusk by George Howard wherein he discusses the finding that Jupiter gets struck by cosmic impacts more often than scientists had thought, by at least an order of magnitude. The basic premise of the article is that there are likely more strikes on Jupiter than we thought based on historical records. It is NOT that there are more strikes, as Zephyr's confirmation biased rantings would have one believe, rather that the number of strikes Jupiter gets are likely higher than we thought because our studies of that giant planet have only recently revealed that it gets hit more often than historical records listed.
So, still no.
Let's look at cite #2 in another post, because I am running out of characters in this one.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
Cite #2 is a Utube video from NASAExplore (https://www.youtu...IB_OyXs) wherein they discuss how it is that the number of reported comets striking the sun has risen dramatically in the last few years (since 1979 to be exact) from roughly 10 to something close to 2500.

It is because in 1980 the Solar Maximum Mission was launched, thus allowing nearly continuous monitoring of the sun. This was followed by Ulysses in 1990, Yohkoh in 1991, SOHO in 1995, and so on. In other words, we see more because we are watching, not because there are more.

So, once again, the answer remains no.

I bet you just hate it Zephyr, when people actually take the time to look at your bogus claims. Proves you to be the simple-minded charlatan you are.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
[Doesn't Yellowstone release too much He-3 in recent period? No
Yes.
From the article: "It seems that helium has accumulated for many hundreds of millions of years in Archaean (more than 2.5 billion years old) cratonic rocks beneath Yellowstone, only to be liberated over the past two million years by intense crustal metamorphism induced by the Yellowstone hotspot." So, no. Can you read Zephyr?
BTW The He-3 formation has been linked with cold fusion long time. I'm pretty sure, you had no idea about it.
I'm pretty sure that you don;t know what you are talking about.
This is the way of thinking, which is still the taboo for the proponents of mainstream physics. They just want to adhere to classical well established physics, which provides jobs for them. And they have nowhere to hurry, until their money are going. The systematical downvoting of all inconvenient ideas provides the stability of their ignorant attitude.
Oh boohoo. And BS. You're a lying liar.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
Didn't we observe, how the neutrino flux affects the speed of radioactive decay of many elements?
You apparently missed http://web.mit.ed...at.html. Of course, such an ignorants get upvoted most just with another ignorants. We are living in culture of ignorants carefully selected with contemporary educational system, which hides all deviations from established theories before pupils.
Well, I have to say that you have raised gish-gallop to the highest level I have seen ever. You link to a page with some 56 papers on it to support your incorrect interpretation of something you don't understand. I am willing to bet that if I took the time to read those papers, that NONE of them would support your contention. In fact, most wouldn't even touch on the subject.

So you are proving yourself, yet again, to be a lying crank and a supporter of dubious science and pseudo-science only because you don't understand what you read.

YOU ARE A CRANK!

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. The climate cycles are linked to the magnetic cycles, not the overall energy forced into the system. If the Sun forces the oceans, then by default it influences the climate. The energy doesn't change, but the transfer of that energy does.

I tend not to try and speak with you too much, but this got my interest. Do you have any cites that support your contention? Some correlation between magnetic cycles and climate cycles?
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
We are living in culture of ignorants carefully selected with contemporary educational system, which hides all deviations from established theories before pupils.
I just had to come back to this one. A pseudo-scientist at work - if your unsupported contentions are challenged in any way, claim that you are being repressed and that your method of arriving at your unsupported contentions is novel and new and not recognized as the genius it is.

Boohoo, poor Zephyr, so hard done by.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
Maggnus: I just want to say that your patience and rigor goes well beyond most efforts. I just ignore Zephyr but it is refreshing to see someone actually call BS on him. You have done a great job of showing why his blatant speculation has zero science behind it and that he can't even read the papers he cites. My hat is off to you for this great effort. I wish I could give your comments more than a 5 rating.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2014
imido claimed
It doesn't matter, what you're willing to bet - we will see soon, who is the crank here
U totally missed the point, bulk of your citations are irrelevant yet U act without shame or apology & don't care U look immensely NAIVE & appear manipulative. Are U so tragically psychotic U don't THINK some of us will actually read & inspect your links - & they come to naught, well bar the single lengthy 1 which also smacks of disingenuous intellectual activity ie. Flooding by appearance propaganda like layout is manipulative in that it attempts to intimidate - an immature tiring flood dissuading dialectic or progression !

Far smarter way to progress your discussion imido is point to 1-3 papers most succinct to ally your opinion, if at least, as preparatory to defining an actual theory (with maths of course).
.
.
Hats off to Maggnus with a keen eye; focus, attention to detail & above all immense patience, could not have done better myself !

edit
ditto thermo :-)
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. The climate cycles are linked to the magnetic cycles, not the overall energy forced into the system. If the Sun forces the oceans, then by default it influences the climate. The energy doesn't change, but the transfer of that energy does.

I tend not to try and speak with you too much, but this got my interest. Do you have any cites that support your contention? Some correlation between magnetic cycles and climate cycles?


I would also like to see this. And, I would add that I would like to hear your attribution of a causal relationship between the magnetic cycles and warming. Please explain how a change in the sun's magnetic fields results in temperature changes on the earth.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
Tiny urls again! How DO you do that?
@Maggnus
if you input what you want into a document first, you can build the tiny url into the word and it will transfer when you copy/paste -for modern word processors, post 2006, i believe: i can't remember the exact year win decided to integrate browser/html/database/everything access so that it would be easier to integrate functions like outlook and Access, etc (especially using VBA)

Also, i wish i could give you 100 stars for showing that zephir is the worst spamming pseudoscience idiot here

You were patient and accurate, and deserve it

And, I would add that I would like to hear your attribution of a causal relationship between the magnetic cycles and warming.
@Thermo
SECONDED
I have seen some studies he posted elsewhere that tie sun cycles (we all have), but still no evidence with regard to magnetic cycles

Thank You for your contributions
@Helo
You're welcome
And thank you as well!
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2014
Some links:
http://cio.eldoc....Geel.pdf
"With the physical mechanism proposed, it is possible to explain the physical link between the solar cycle length and the global Earth surface temperature. At the same time the proposed mechanism explains the decrease of the Earth surface temperature during excursions, inversions, and low-value periods of the main geomagnetic field"

http://plasmareso...cing.pdf
"there is a close connection between energetic solar eruptions on the
one hand and ENSO and the NAO on the other. So it could be that solar eruptions, too, have an impact on the PDO"

Please explain how a change in the sun's magnetic fields results in temperature changes on the earth.

It's not a direct heating influence like TSI. By forcing the oceans into different cycles the heat transfer also changes, such as PDO, ENSO, AMOC etc...
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2014
sun cycles (we all have), but still no evidence with regard to magnetic cycles

The solar cycle is the magnetic cycle, as well as the 'sunspot' cycle.
http://iopscience.../article
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2014
The solar cycle is apparently driven with motion of Jupiter

Interesting, it wouldn't surprise me since Jupiter's magnetosphere is massive. Do you have any links that support this?
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
OK, I archived the discussion here - we will see, who will have the last fun. BTW Jupiter red spot is http://www.spacet...eic1410/ - which would indicate the same for global warming too - according to my theory... It's disappearing after 2002 year, when the global warming hiatus also started.


You son of a bitch, that link (the "here" one) is A VIRUS!! I would sure like to meet you face to face one day.

The changing nature of Jupiter's hurricane has been noted since the 30's, if not sooner. It is a storm, Zephyr, and storms tend to wax and wane over their lifetime. It has nothing to do with global warming on Jupiter, and certainly nothing to do with your quack theories.

And there has been no "hiatus".
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2014
Thank you for your kinds words Mike, Thermo and Stumpy!

This is not the first time I have looked at his links and seen what he is trying to do. Watch out for the virus he embedded in his reply!
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2014
that link (the "here" one) is A VIRUS
Which one? My antivirus is negative.
Uh huh.
The changing nature of Jupiter's hurricane has been noted since the 30's
Yes, first growing, then receding - in the same way, like the global warming.
No, like a hurricane dummy.
It is a storm, Zephyr, and storms tend to wax and wane over their lifetime
Well, the storms are correlated with global warming or not?
What is it with you and "correlation"? DO you understand what "causation" is?
I would sure like to meet you face to face one day.
I'm pretty sure, you wouldn't want it..;-) At any case, it's just another dream of yours.
Oh, I think our conversation would be most interesting. With a nice Chianti or Merlot. And the internet close by to counter your half and untruths.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
there has been no "hiatus"
You Russians just cannot stop lying, http://en.wikiped..._hiatus?


You suggesting I am Russian. Interesting.

You should read your cites crank.

"The current slowdown period began in about 1998 - an El Niño year of record warm temperatures. Since then, even though the overall climate system has continued to accumulate energy due to Earth's positive energy budget,[5][6] the available temperature readings at earth's surface appear to show a slower rate of increase in surface warming than in the prior decade. "

Would you like me to explain to you what that means? I know your comprehension of English is problematic.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
Would you like me to explain to you what that means?
Yes, the atmosphere is not contributing to global warming anymore - now it just runs with thermal capacity of marine water.


You should read some of what Runrig has been trying to inform you, as you have everything ass-backwards. Is that the same marine water that is more in contact with Arctic ocean water goofy?

Really, your lack of understanding of even the most basic scientific principles is laughable - and sickening.
imido
Dec 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
Is that the same marine water that is more in contact with Arctic ocean water goofy
Yes, this is the reason, why the global warming is much http://phys.org/n...th.html. I don't take a sh*t about "scientific principles", which has lead us into contemporary energetic and financial crisis due to long term ignorance of cold fusion. I'm just connecting facts with logics.


No, dumdum, you are connecting fantasies with fiction! You don;t give a sh*t about them because you don't know how to use them. It is your long term ignorance of scientific method that is the root of your fantasies and misunderstandings, combined with your narcissism.

At least you've abandoned all pretense of being someone other than Zephyr. See ya goofy!
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2014
Someday politics will lose interest and global warming will be ignored like the rain forest.

Some day the ignorant will realise that the science comes first, and, as it is a worldwide problem, politics and a worldwide response are a self-fulfuling prophesy.
Another is that the ignorant and ideologically driven will F** up the planet eventually.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2014
t wouldn't surprise me since Jupiter's magnetosphere is massive
Barycenter has nothing to do with magnetic field. It's private theory of mine, but the empirical research of Landscheid & Charvatova (dozens of publications, BTW) supports its well. We already have multiple evidence of synchronicity of planetary and climatic cycles (http://i.imgur.com/pH9e4vP.gif, which excludes the possibility of magnetic field involvement, btw).

Baahawhaw "private theory of mine" so in other words "i have strung a bunch of sciency sounding words together which I think looks credible and might fool people". What a rube!
Egleton
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2014
I accept that CO2 is warming the planet because of the quality of the opposing arguments, the evidence of our remote sensors and because the theory is sound. (I'll bet someone latches onto the "theory" bit because they do not understand the word.)
This is my philosophical position.
If a large impactor were to threaten all life on Earth, would we agonize about who caused the impactor? Or would we launch a Hail Mary defence? And then squabble over who gets to pay.

The argument that this is all done for the money displays a profound misunderstanding about how money is brought into existence. It is printed. Have you ever heard about Quantitative Easing? Bank Bailouts? There is no need for the FED to steal your pittance from the cookie jar. Nor to increase your taxes. The FED can just dilute the value of your dollar by printing- as it has ever since the Creature from Jekyll Island was conceived.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2014
Scroofy: Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, the link to Landscheidt's PDF is self-referential in that he cites only his own papers and those are not peer reviewed.

You then cited "CALIBRATING 100 YEARS OF POLAR FACULAE MEASUREMENTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE HELIOSPHERIC MAGNETIC FIELD" Now I have to ask Why you cited this last one? What do you think it says that supports your contention that the solar magnetic field is changing the heat content of the earth?

Geel was the closest you came to supporting your view, but that paper is looking at millennium length time spans, not century length or decadal.

The bottom line is that there was nothing that supported your view that the magnetic field of the sun is changing the heat content of the earth. Do you have any more citations that might be closer to a real paper supporting your view?
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2014
Egleton claimed
I accept that CO2 is warming the planet because of the quality of the opposing arguments, the evidence of our remote sensors and because the theory is sound
Hell, thats not what I do, that would be a tad naive to accept an argument because the contrary is dumb & uneducated & lazy. Instead I accept the balance of probabilities re CO2 increasing resistivity of heat flow to space, why ?

Its demonstrated physics.

Egleton went on
This is my philosophical position
Well fine but, why stop so low.
"Philo" = Intellectual Love; "sophy" = Truth ie 'Love of truth' but, to be genuine with mature integrity demands objective investigation into physical property re details.

Why "details" because:- "Details matter, as the truth hides in the details".

Problem many casual people face is a mature understanding, the details demand a really GOOD education due to "combinatorial complexity" issues & simple people who crave certainty cannot appreciate it :-(
Scroofinator
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2014
Landscheidt's PDF is self-referential

He's trying to further explain his theory, much of it references Minobe's study anyways
http://onlinelibr...0504/pdf
Nobody has disproven his theories yet, so his work should not be discounted.

Gyres are the conveyor belts of Earth's heat, at least the majority of it. They are clearly what causes global atmospheric circulation.
http://www.i-cool..._dyn.jpg
http://tropic.sse...ain.html
The variation in the patterns of these gyres are what really drive climate. They're like jet streams, only each gyre transports a 'tunnel' of warm/cold water to dispense locally. An El Nino is the effect of the short term variation of gyres.

We see similar effects with the 'tubes' of magnetic energy that creates sunspots. Since water is essentially a "cold plasma" and has charge, I hypothesize gyres are geomagnetically driven as well.
Selena
Dec 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2014
What do you think it says that supports your contention that the solar magnetic field is changing the heat content of the earth?

This paper shows evidence of a varying geomagnetic field based on solar wind interaction, which is a function of the solar magnetic field strength/cycle.

they can see their electromagnetism everywhere

Because it is everywhere.

Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2014
Listen, all I'm trying to say is that there is a link between the Sun's solar cycles and our own climate systems. I don't fully understand this interaction, and it may very well be a non-magnetic influence, but until I can find a better driver it's what I'm sticking with.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2014
Scroof: Absolutely right there is a link between the Sun's solar cycles and our climate, as a planet and with more local effects.
Solar magnetism is linked to sunspots, sunspots linked to the Sun't total power.
http://upload.wik...data.png
It is remarkable that this data, uncorrupted, mind you, is becoming so difficult to come by.

Of course it is not the Sun's B field doing the dirty work.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2014
Listen, all I'm trying to say is that there is a link between the Sun's solar cycles and our own climate systems. I don't fully understand this interaction, and it may very well be a non-magnetic influence, but until I can find a better driver it's what I'm sticking with.


I think that solar output is a better driver. See this, for eg: http://www.ncbi.n...MC18780/

There is no evidence that the solar magnetic field, in and of itself, has any effect. The fact that the sun's total output changes slightly as it moves through it's 11 year cycle is an important driver, but the magnetic field changes that occur during the cycle have no measurable effect on climate that I am aware of.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2014
Water_Prophet claimed
Absolutely right there is a link between the Sun's solar cycles and our climate..
Precisely where is there any correlation ?

Water_Prophet hasn't shown ANY climate correlation, dumb use of "absolutely"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png
Water_Prophet's immense rubbish
It is remarkable that this data, uncorrupted, mind you, is becoming so difficult to come by
What R U implying ?

Again goes to prove U cannot have uni training as (under)graduates can easily get these types of graphs & details from many sources.

Link TSI & Earth temp anomaly
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

Show us; trained in maths & physics Water_Prophet (proven to have no uni maths/physics training), how ANYTHING correlates even a 'wee bit' with your link above ?

Chomping at the bit here or R U trying to waste all our time, get educated ?

Your chip on shoulder er tiny bowl evaporated yet ;-) ?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2014
Scroofinator claimed
The variation in the patterns of these gyres are what really drive climate
Wrong. Here is far more appropriate view of analogy:-

TSI drives climate <=> car's engine power
Gyre <=> Camber/Castor affecting steering
U can guess steering equivalent analogy aspect for climate & palpable.

Scroofinator claimed
They're like jet streams, only each gyre transports a 'tunnel' of warm/cold water to dispense locally.
Only slightly, fluidic edges not static also currents have much higher mass.

Scroofinator claimed
An El Nino is the effect of the short term variation of gyres
Not quite.

Please get a FULLer education here:-
https://en.wikipe...ean_gyre
https://en.wikipe...i%C3%B1o

Scroofinator claimed
Since water is essentially a "cold plasma" and has charge
No. There is ONLY potential for charge separation, nothing like any plasma dynamics.

Scroofinator hypothesise ok yeah but, helps to get educated AS WELL.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2014
Scroofinator claimed
Listen, all I'm trying to say is that there is a link between the Sun's solar cycles and our own climate systems.
Where is ANY taste of correlation - please ?

AND, if U find a correlation, any CAUSAL aspect or masked by intermediate combinatorial complexity ?

Eg. Such as "..skinny people smoke more cigs.." re a secondary effect of stopping smoking 'might" predispose people to eat more which should not be dumbly interpreted as "nictotine makes U lose weight" doh !

Scroofinator almost
I don't fully understand this interaction, and it may very well be a non-magnetic
Would influence Earth energy balance AND be measurable re radiative spectra even secondarily, infra red etc

Scroofinator's laziness
..find a better driver it's what I'm sticking..
Already well KNOWN:-

-Insolation
-Earth converts shortwave radiation (SW) to longwave (LW)
-LW resistivity of GHGs via simple absorption/re-radiation

Smarter to study essential Physics...
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2014
Elsewhere Water_Prophet claimed
They show everything you need to know about why CO2 doesn't work
That is ONLY from Sol to Earth, U miss SO MUCH !

WHY Water_Prophet do U REFUSE to look at absorption/re-radiation of Earth to Space ?

You seem to have a very serious reading/comprehension neglect bias problem !

Please FOCUS on these SIMPLE questions, do U accept:-

1. Your TSI graph ONLY shows Sol to Earth - largely Shortwave (SW) ?

2. Earth converts SW to Longwave radiation (LW) ?

3. Negligible SW is emitted to space ?

SIMPLE logic by way of SUBTRACTION re energy PROVES LW to space is CORE issue !
.
.
.
Water_Prophet, this is a VERY simple issue, WHY do U ignore it to look intellectually feeble ?

Please be GENUINE & smarter & not come across with some form of disability... :-(

I await the clarity of response a REAL Physical Chemist (PC) can actually muster to this link:-
http://phys.org/n...day.html
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2014
Mike_Massen blabbered
Wrong. Here is far more appropriate view of analogy:-

TSI drives climate <=> car's engine power
Gyre <=> Camber/Castor affecting steering


TSI powers the climate (like fuel to make "engine power"), but gyres DRIVE it. Do you understand the distinction? You can have a car idling, but someone still needs to be behind the wheel to actually DRIVE the car.

Gyres are what redirect a majority of the Earth's heat. Let's not forget that the oceans store a majority of the energy in the Lithosphere.

There is ONLY potential for charge separation

Water is constantly in motion, which implies separation, hence the reason for charge.

Where is ANY taste of correlation - please ?

http://www.rocket...e003.png
The solar wind trend (TSI) for the past 150 years has been increasing, and so has temperatures. More fuel= more heat. Absorption/re-radiation via GHGs just helps to trap the excess energy.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2014
Scroofinator claimed
TSI powers the climate (like fuel to make "engine power"), but gyres DRIVE it. Do you understand the distinction?
I do, clearly U don't, why ?

Because; TSI = energy per time ie. POWER, Engine produces POWER = very close analogy. Water's heavy with frictional/convective loss, Gyres require POWER to create currents.

Scroofinator almost
Gyres are what redirect a majority of the Earth's heat
Re-direct as in 'steer' but indirectly as more pertinent to see it as castor/camber. The overall is steered by heat balance, yes its subtle, easier to understand when U understand the physics AND consider potential energy, ie That car can go up or downhill affecting its momentum, analogy not 100% perfect.

Scroofinator's simplistic
Let's not forget that the oceans store a majority of the energy in the Lithosphere
Not quite
https://en.wikipe...hosphere

Ocean's specific heat ie Thermal Inertia, Do U understand the distinction?

cont
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2014
Scroofinator claimed
Water is constantly in motion, which implies separation, hence the reason for charge
Implication isn't demonstrable FACT, other than Pk & Ph, there is NO +- separation, because something moves doesn't prove there's ANY +- separation.

Scroofinator failed in correlation & details
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/SOLARWIND_files/image003.png
The solar wind trend (TSI) for the past 150 years has been increasing
No. Be genuine TSI=Total Solar Insolation not "Solar Wind trend" doh
Hardly any substantive correlation, issues U haven't thought

1. Much Solar Wind (SW) deflected by Earth's magnetic field (EMF), where is delta ?
2. No translation of SW to additive energy per TSI component, your link misses ?
3. SW that sneaks EMF would scour atmosphere to space, reduces resistivity

TSI down, temps up
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

SW vs TSI component "Do you understand the distinction?"

cont
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2014
Scroofinator claimed
The solar wind trend (TSI) for the past 150 years has been increasing, and so has temperatures
To make scientific sense of any such claim, U must look at energy that actually adds to Total Solar Insolation (TSI), where is there any evidence the Solar Wind (SW), where was it measured by the way, actually translates to HOW MANY Watts that ACTUALLY impacts upon Earth AFTER the Earth's Magnetic Field (EMF) has done its duty, as comparable to immense TSI re this graph or ANYWHERE please ?

http://www.skepti...asic.gif

AND

How does any energy loosely derived from SW actually compare to increased resistivity of heat flow back to space from Green House Gases (GHGs) ?

Evidence of ANY comparative analysis - anywhere please ?

Scroofinator claimed
More fuel= more heat.
No, Power far more accurate.

Scroofinator added
Absorption/re-radiation via GHGs just helps to trap..
Yes, comparison re SW please ?
Scroofinator
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2014
Mike_Massen oinked
TSI = energy per time ie. POWER, Engine produces POWER = very close analogy.

You still don't get it. TSI is the fuel to our climate systems, whereas the climate system is the "engine". No engine can run without fuel/energy inputs.
Re-direct as in 'steer' but indirectly as more pertinent to see it as castor/camber.

Steer/drive/direct, you can call it what you want but it still means the same thing. The oceans are the greatest influence in our climate system, and are steered/driven/directed by gyres.

The car can be moving uphill or downhill, but there still has to be something "steering" so you don't drive off a cliff.
TSI=Total Solar Insolation not "Solar Wind trend"

Be smarter:
http://en.wikiped...radiance
"Solar irradiance is a measure of the irradiance (power per unit area on the Earth's surface) produced by the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation"
TSI is a function of solar wind, per science
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2014
Scroof, I am afraid Mike argues to argue. He'll just misdirect what you say to call you out on it; ignore, what a wonderful option.

The darn thing is, it is not 100% effective.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 25, 2014
Elsewhere Water_Prophet expounded by showing us example of Hypocrisy
The biggest problem is from pretenders or people with no education who spout their opinions out, which is fine, but then deny even when they do not know, and of course are uninterested in learning or even considering a fact that contradicts their opinion
Agree fully with your pattern.

Your opinion Water_Prophet CO2 is not being significant re TSI is correct, agree with U :-)

People who graduated as a Physical Chemist (PC) of which Water_Prophet claims, should KNOW energy flows in 3D, so Y do U completely IGNORE Earth's emissions which any person with intelligence & Physics training easily determine it MUST be overwhelmingly Long Wave (LW) ie. Plain to "see" Short Wave (SW) from Earth is negligible !

Why do U ignore LW, where CO2's absorbance/re-radiation is the HIGHEST ?

Water_Prophet muttered
..having only a fork's understanding of how the food tastes
What does this even mean ?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2014
Scroofinator claimed
You still don't get it
Sorry to say it's U that doesn't get it !

When U choose analogies as part of science communication to uneducated U craft it to converge as close as possible to reality. Its Power that reaches Earth, Gyres distribute energy as part of that Power. If you focus on issue of Fuel then U have difficulty qualifying the terms of the analogy to account for conversion of Fuel to Heat ie Combustion, more sensible to be direct.

Gyres CANNOT operate without energy differential, basic Physics. Its Power that is steered but more indirectly than overall influences adding thermal resistivity (to heat).

Scroofinator claimed
..oceans are the greatest influence in our climate system, and are steered/driven/directed by gyres
More appropriate to accept Oceans are moderators of climate, driver is the engine that creates the Power in the first place, ie Sol.

Analogies can be useful but, best to converge to reality where possible.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 26, 2014
Elsewhere Water_Prophet claimed
How can you say I ignore longwave radiations?
By evidence U ignored long wave (LW) radiation re CO2's interference to space, U only saw TSI.

U write fossil fuel (FF) proportion of TSI, yet U IGNORE FACT Earth converts short wave (SW) to LW & CO2 interferes with emission to Space. Nobody is disagreeing FF adds heat & CO2. But, U, as a claimed Physical Chemist (PC) haven't acknowledged CO2's interference U even claimed "CO2 is a red herring", which is obviously completely WRONG !

Water_Prophet claimed
..1998 was a very hot year; Industry was booming and the Sun was at/near a max
Huh? U claim Sun TSI was at max ? Not according to this
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

Water_Prophet claimed to be a PC, yet doesn't write like one, so does Water_Prophet accept:-

1. TSI mainly SW
2. Earth converts SW to LW
3. LW to space interfered by CO2

Simple issue Water_Prophet I asked U before, WHY do u evade ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.