Same forces as today caused climate changes 1.4 billion years ago

March 10, 2015, University of Southern Denmark
Ice ages come and go on Earth. Credit: University of Southern Denmark

Natural forces have always caused the climate on Earth to fluctuate. Now researchers have found geological evidence that some of the same forces as today were at play 1.4 billion years ago.

Fluctuating climate is a hallmark of Earth, and the present greenhouse effect is by far the only force affecting today's climate. On a larger scale the Earth's climate is also strongly affected by how the Earth orbits around the sun; this is called orbital forcing of climate change. These changes happen over thousands of years and they bring ice ages and warming periods.

Now researchers from University of Southern Denmark, China National Petroleum Corporation and others have looked deep into Earth's history and can reveal that orbital forcing of climate change contributed to shaping the Earth's climate 1.4 billion years ago.

"This study helps us understand how past climate changes have affected Earth geologically and biologically", says Donald Canfield, principal investigator and professor at Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, University of Southern Denmark.

The evidence comes from analyses of sedimentary records from the approximately 1.4 billion-year-old and exceptionally well preserved Xiamaling Formation in China.

Changes in wind patterns and ocean circulations

The sediments in the Xiamaling Formation have preserved evidence of repeated climate fluctuations, reflecting apparent changes in and ocean circulation that indicates orbital forcing of climate change.

Today Earth is affected by fluctuations called the Milankovich cycles. There are three different Milankovich cycles, and they occur each 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years. Over the last one million years these cycles have caused ice ages every 100,000 years, and right now we are in the middle of a warming period that has so far lasted 11,000 years.

"Earth's climate history is complex. With this research we can show that cycles like the Milankovich cycles were at play 1.4 billion years ago - a period, we know only very little about", says Donald Canfield, adding:

"This research will also help us understand how Milankovitch cyclicity ultimately controls on Earth."

In the new scientific paper in the journal PNAS, the researchers report both geochemical and sedimentological evidence for repeated, short-term fluctuations 1.4 billion years ago. For example the fossilized sediments show how layers of organic material differed over time, indicating cycle changes in wind patterns, rain fall and ocean circulations.

"These cycles were a little different than today's Milankovich cycles. They occurred every 12-16,000 years, 20-30,000 years and every 100,000 years. They were a little shorter - probably because the Moon was closer to Earth 1.4 billion years ago", explains Donald Canfield.

Explore further: Evidence from warm past confirms recent IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity

More information: Orbital forcing of climate 1.4 billion years ago, PNAS, www.pnas.org/content/early/201 … /1502239112.abstract

Related Stories

The sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods

February 27, 2015

The activity of the Sun is an important factor in the complex interaction that controls our climate. New research now shows that the impact of the Sun is not constant over time, but has greater significance when the Earth ...

A song of fire and ice in the ocean

February 10, 2015

Cyclic changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis and the eccentricity of its orbit have left their mark on hills deep under the ocean, a study published in Science has found.

Reconstructing the African humid period

December 5, 2014

During the end of the last ice age, there were dramatic changes in rainfall across a vast swath of Africa. As the world's large ice sheets receded in northern and southern latitudes, rainfall in much of Africa increased dramatically, ...

Recommended for you

In colliding galaxies, a pipsqueak shines bright

February 20, 2019

In the nearby Whirlpool galaxy and its companion galaxy, M51b, two supermassive black holes heat up and devour surrounding material. These two monsters should be the most luminous X-ray sources in sight, but a new study using ...

When does one of the central ideas in economics work?

February 20, 2019

The concept of equilibrium is one of the most central ideas in economics. It is one of the core assumptions in the vast majority of economic models, including models used by policymakers on issues ranging from monetary policy ...

Research reveals why the zebra got its stripes

February 20, 2019

Why do zebras have stripes? A study published in PLOS ONE today takes us another step closer to answering this puzzling question and to understanding how stripes actually work.

Correlated nucleons may solve 35-year-old mystery

February 20, 2019

A careful re-analysis of data taken at the Department of Energy's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility has revealed a possible link between correlated protons and neutrons in the nucleus and a 35-year-old mystery. ...

103 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dadpt
2 / 5 (23) Mar 10, 2015
Natural causes can't be causing it. The believers have a computer program that has been programmed to show how man made CO2 could be causing it. The pause over the last 19+ years might be caused by ocean currents they say. I say its not much of stretch then to say the that rise since the 70's may have been caused by ocean currents. Can't be the believers say. Not sure if the believers believe because they are paid shills by the green movement or if they truly believe the propaganda. I agree with NASA's initial look at the CO2 situation. We are adding a trace amount of gas that is a trace amount in the atmosphere. If you increase the level to 5% all of the thermal radiation coming from the surface of the earth is absorbed by the atmosphere in 29 meters instead of 30 meters. The reports conclusion was so what. In reality man is adding about 1% of the CO2 that's currently being added to the atmosphere. Any person with any reasoning ability at all should conclude so what to mans CO2.
AlPerez
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2015
I would submit that, since the formation of Earth, the climate has ALWAYS been changing. It is not limited to today and a point in time 1.4 billion years ago. It has never been static. The same forces that are responsible for the changes over billions of years will be the same ones that cause it to change in the future. Unless, of course, someone is arrogant enough to think they can change the laws of physics. LOL!
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
dpt, those are some awfully simple thoughts about a situation that we are still working towards comprehending. Models exist as a guide to ending ignorance. they are faulty. they are sometimes entirely erroneous and provide nothing but a dead end. but you can rest assured, the climate is not excused from newtons laws.

However, Spoo...
The "model" (of the models you speak of), DOES show a marketing slant towards a slight "sky is falling" modality.
Of course, that could be a faulty, erroneous or a complete dead end statement - but it can't escape the laws of human interactions...
SFBayLaser
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
It looks to me like the sentence "Fluctuating climate is a hallmark of Earth, and the present greenhouse effect is by far the only force affecting today's climate." is missing the word "not" after "by far"??
Science Officer
2 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2015
Hey, if you're going to pull money out of thin air, you've got to be able to blame human progress and prey off the guilt of successful societies.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2015
It looks to me like the sentence "Fluctuating climate is a hallmark of Earth, and the present greenhouse effect is by far the only force affecting today's climate." is missing the word "not" after "by far"??

Indeed...
"It looks to me" is why this comment is a waste of space.
bubsir
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2015
This article has nothing to do with modern theories of anthropogenic CO2 climate forcing. The solar cycles are known and accounted for. As mentioned in the article, better understanding is always good. But spinning it to ignore our current CO2 issues is not "science."
Shootist
2 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2015
The Climate Changes == Dog bites man.

Where's the story in that?

"The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson
Wake
2.4 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2015
It really is important to note that the more research into climate change is done that the more unlikely that "greenhouse gases" have any effect on it.

The real question is whether the recent weather patterns a sign of climate change or not. The True Believers insist that man is destroying the earth and every drop of rain that lands anywhere but in the puddle it formed 10,000 years ago is proof positive of it.

The reasonable people and increasingly the more vocal scientists that have been shouted over by the True Believers ("What does HE know about climate change? He's only a geologist or a meteorologist - they know NOTHING about weather or climate.) are showing that chaotic weather events and climate change are two different things that can look the same. We do not have the keys to the kingdom and cannot identify everything always as the True Believers insist.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2015
Didn't we have a guy DLK and the skeptigoons abused off this site say exactly the above?
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2015
Those that would downvote a question as to the veracity of it's questioner are suspect...
kamcoautomotive
Mar 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
It really is important to note that the more research into climate change is done that the more unlikely that "greenhouse gases" have any effect on it.

The real question is whether the recent weather patterns a sign of climate change or not. The True Believers insist that man is destroying the earth and every drop of rain that lands anywhere but in the puddle it formed 10,000 years ago is proof positive of it.

The reasonable people and increasingly the more vocal scientists that have been shouted over by the True Believers ("What does HE know about climate change? He's only a geologist or a meteorologist - they know NOTHING about weather or climate.) are showing that chaotic weather events and climate change are two different things that can look the same. We do not have the keys to the kingdom and cannot identify everything always as the True Believers insist.

Seriously...what the fuck are you talking about?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2015
Those that would downvote a question as to the veracity of it's questioner are suspect...


One that would frame his question in a manner so as to invite suspicion as to the veracity of its (not "it's", that means "it is") questioner, deserves to be down voted.
crownvic5l
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
I must say this is the first study that sounds even close to believable. I'm no scientist but I believe mans effects on climate change we are experiencing is minimal and that what we have is a natural process the earth goes through. In mid-evil times they would blame the Gods now we blame every thing but them. Not that I think we couldn't improve our foot print or shouldn't but I think most of the Green push is all politically motivated rather than science motivated.
marqbons
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
So many jousting at windmills as the human condition is to seek a purpose, even if it fails to root its self in truth as we will instead subvert science to validate our own purpose and existence. Amazing, as us humans fail to establish a basis from which to reason from to test our skills in establishing a fact from a theory.
Whydening Gyre
3.6 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2015
Whydenig - I read your comment as yet another piece of denilist garbage - like at least 6 other comments that immediately got dumped on to this thread. (calling the models "marketing") It becomes apparent that trying to counter the denialists with reason - or evidence - or respectful engagement is totally pointless - so at least we have the option of shooting them a quick 1 on the voting scale. Probably irrelevant - but it does seem it irk a few bozos like uba. Facts are facts - and history will sort this all out - mean time - maybe it just makes me feel better to down vote the science deniers.

My statement was more a cautionary statement to those with possibly incomplete information, is all... On BOTH sides...
I'm not totally in either camp. I see critical points in CO2 concerns but, as a pragmatist, I see some "certain" points also in a less than certain light.
That said, however... I DO believe a little preemptive preventive maintenance ain't a bad thing...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2015
So many jousting at windmills as the human condition is to seek a purpose, even if it fails to root its self in truth as we will instead subvert science to validate our own purpose and existence. Amazing, as us humans fail to establish a basis from which to reason from to test our skills in establishing a fact from a theory.

Sorry, Marq.
But that is an epic NON-profundity...
The only way to establish a basis from which to reason is to get out there and DO something...
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2015
An article that says M cycles are forcing climate, preceded by one that says solar forcing of the oceans changes climate.
https://scholar.g...e=active
I have been trying to explain this to the collective AGWers (runrig/thermo/stumpy/etc..) but to no avail because they refused to use their own thought and logic.

Well now that there is empirical evidence for my claims, do you all still believe it's solely man's CO2 pollution that is causing the changes we are seeing?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2015
An article that says M cycles are forcing climate, preceded by one that says solar forcing of the oceans changes climate.
https://scholar.g...e=active
I have been trying to explain this to the collective AGWers (runrig/thermo/stumpy/etc..) but to no avail because they refused to use their own thought and logic.....

Scroof:
I have no problem with that.
As I see it it is a storage of solar energy in surface waters, due variation in the NAO (N Atlantic Oscillation), perhaps due current slowdown when the NAO is chronically -ve.
You still cant get around that all solar cycles (that we know of) are just that - cyclic and so cannot drive climate in the long term. Regarding current warming, where is the solar warming? You can argue atmospheric coupling, fine, but that doesn't add heat.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2015
runrig, the solar cycle isn't just the north-south pole flip every ~11 years. It also goes through an amplitude cycle every ~400 years.
https://cbdakota....ct13.jpg
As you can see the amplitude of the polar magnetic fields are decreasing currently with every cycle. At some point in the future they will start to increase again, but only after a few cycles of very low solar flux.

The point is, the "solar cycle" isn't a short term thing, as evidenced by the Maunder Min.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2015
Regarding current warming, where is the solar warming?

I still maintain it is magnetic by nature, i.e the Sun's variation forces up stored heat from the oceans or traps it depending on the PDO or NAO cycle. At least NASA is now prepared to do the necessary research to investigate the deeper magnetic Earth-Sun link.
http://www.nasa.g...CevnF8uc

I do believe that GHGs in general are causing some heating (and overall poisoning of Earth), just not on the scale that we are lead to believe.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
runrig, the solar cycle isn't just the north-south pole flip every ~11 years. It also goes through an amplitude cycle every ~400 years.
https://cbdakota....ct13.jpg
As you can see the amplitude of the polar magnetic fields are decreasing currently with every cycle. At some point in the future they will start to increase again, but only after a few cycles of very low solar flux.
The point is, the "solar cycle" isn't a short term thing, as evidenced by the Maunder Min.

All agreed.
But as I said, where is the solar warming as in greater TSI - the above is a cooling phase.
I fail to see how "magnetic coupling" can generate heat.
Regarding a possible PDO/ENSO coupling ... again maybe. But that is stored heat from TSI just the same, just revealed or hidden cyclically and not driving the climate long term. Your "mechanism" would only switch it +ve or -ve.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
dadpt claimed
Any person with any reasoning ability at all should conclude so what to mans CO2.
This is obviously completely true to the uneducated such as denier offered in person a few weeks back:-
"Its obvious when ice warms it melts & since we still have ice climate isnt warming" ignoring of course it depends just how cold ice starts at & how its distributed !

With CO2, yes its a gas and the uneducated just can't get their head around this:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Because it is *not obvious* & cannot be felt directly by our skin regardless of humidity...!

So the obvious logic is to investigate CO2's thermal properties and ADD them over the whole planet, then with that MATHS u discover CO2 has a greater effect than heat produced !

OR

Where is your evidence CO2 is mostly transparent to infra-red radiation to space ?

This might offer chance to think
https://ourchangi...co22.png
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2015
Wake claimed
It really is important to note that the more research into climate change is done that the more unlikely that "greenhouse gases" have any effect on it
No its proven see my last post !

Wake, your other paras sadly are drivel !

But this idiocy & immense uneducated bark is an indicator of ignorance of physics, where Wake claimed
We do not have the keys to the kingdom and cannot identify everything always as the True Believers insist.
Wrong.

The keys are; Physics, especially Statistical Mechanics, Heat, Ethalpy ie Specific & Latent Heats coupled with mathematics which include Calculus such as Integration, So regardless of the inherent chaos Eg re particles in statistical mechanics we can 'do the math' and discover we have upset Earth's energy balance & the main reason for that change are the copious amounts of CO2 which have a DIRECT effect upon radiation leaving to space allowing earth to cool !
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Shastafarian
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
Let the earth heal... let the palms return to the Arctic, Let true north find it's way home..
People are just a burden to the land... the earth always finds her way..
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2015
marqbons claimed
So many jousting at windmills as the human condition is to seek a purpose, even if it fails to root its self in truth as we will instead subvert science to validate our own purpose and existence. Amazing, as us humans fail to establish a basis from which to reason from to test our skills in establishing a fact from a theory.
See my other posts just few mins ago.

Bear in mind we have this thing called EVIDENCE which adds to theory & is consistent with the application of mathematics.

Eg
My link here & the FACT the thermal properties of CO2 have NEVER been proven wrong !
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2015
Scroofinator claimed
.. article that says M cycles are forcing climate, preceded by one that says solar forcing of the oceans changes climate.
http://geology.gs...03.short
... refused to use their own thought and logic
One can see Y, Sorry U fail. This is about PAST climate & there is nothing to suggest that PAST had anywhere near the "rate of change" we r experiencing NOW Eg Last 100yrs !!!

ie
https://ourchangi...co22.png

Scroofinator claimed & askedWell now that there is empirical evidence for my claims What evidence - a link to an abstract - r u on something ?

Scroofinator asked
.. do you all still believe it's solely man's CO2 pollution that is causing the changes we are seeing?
Its not about belief - that is religion. Its about the balance of probabilties. ie There, so far, is nothing with sufficient energy comparable to effect CO2 has on long wave infra red (IR), nada !
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
Scroofinator claimed
.. the solar cycle isn't just the north-south pole flip every ~11 years. It also goes through an amplitude cycle every ~400 years.
https://cbdakota....ct13.jpg
Oops U didn't notice these r in microTesla & measured where precisely ?

Note, the differential is reducing ie LESS energy per change, which matches the lower Total Solar Insolation as per here whilst temps STILL go up, your link shows "going the wrong way" Eg.
http://www.skepti...asic.gif
Overlay on this
http://upload.wik...data.png

Scroofinator stated
As you can see the amplitude of the polar magnetic fields are decreasing currently with every cycle
Sure so we would expect temps to go down but, they arent !

https://ourchangi...co22.png

How does reducing Sol's EM energy support higher temps ?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2015
Scroofinator claimed
I still maintain it is magnetic by nature, i.e the Sun's variation forces up stored heat from the oceans or traps it depending on the PDO or NAO cycle
Ah so the detail is you claim a very weak magnetic field we get here also overwhelmed by Earth's field somehow has the means to FORCE heat to move ?

Are u claiming source of new heat is para/dia or ferro-magnetic ?

Hence my previous Q re where sun's field measured ?

For ANY basis in your "maintained" idea, u have to show it's Physics & WHY earth's field at the source MAKES heat move & a particular ?

Scroofinator claimed
At least NASA is now prepared to do the necessary research to investigate the deeper magnetic Earth-Sun link
Old studies AND U will see local Earth's EM trounces Sol's EM !

Scroofinator stated
I do believe that GHGs...not on the scale that we are lead to believe
Not belief/religion. it's balance of probabilities, sry CO2 trounces EM, nothing else comparable :-(
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
Shastafarian muttered
Let the earth heal... let the palms return to the Arctic, Let true north find it's way home..
People are just a burden to the land... the earth always finds her way..
Red whine got to you or something stronger. In any case you are showing immense lack of empathy, compassion and anything that might be able to alleviating suffering.

A very sad position to take, lets hope you snap out of it when u get into your late teens...

Been to Bangladesh significant increases in erosion, Tuvalu re storm surges - both from higher sea levels... Unfortunately equatorial regions will get it first & worst for obvious reasons...
https://en.wikipe...e_change

"Bangladesh is now widely recognised to be one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change."
https://en.wikipe...ngladesh

Where is the money, resources & places they can move to with appropriate expediency ?
Whydening Gyre
3.6 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2015
Then why the use of a term like 'marketing?' It seemed to me that you were piling in on the old 'scientists are all politically motivated' trope.

Need thicker skins...
While we may have incomplete information - surely we have enough information - to be very very concerned. If we find we have loosed a monster - future generations are not going to happy with us - and that monster may be uncontrollable. The least we can do today is look for win/wins - such as developing renewables - at the same time as letting the experts study the issue, and keep us informed. It is denialist obfuscation - I think fed by the oil and gas industry - that is holding us back from really seeking solutions. Solutions that could be good for the planet - and society as well. Why not look for win/wins?

All for renewables.
"Experts" studying something and reporting on it can also have drawbacks.(Political manipulation to name just one)
(cont)
Whydening Gyre
3.3 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2015
(cont)
"Denialist obfuscation" is subject to those same drawbacks.

The proper course of action is to neither panic nor ignore.
Taking the time to really step back and look deeply at a situation takes a little time.
Something some of us "old codgers" forget to do occasionally, since we occasionally get focused too deeply on a thing (too much time on our hands and info in our brains?).
Shaking the "tree" every so often brings down the "fruit" that can then be used/consumed to provide a little more energy to think on it some more...:-)
just sayin'...

Oh, and.... EVERYone has political motive - (the survival of "self" being first).
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2015
Imagine this -
(inserting wild hypothesis here)
biology dies, breaks down to carbon, which then sits in the ground "fermenting" into methane, oil and eventually coal.
Too much methane built up creates a problem - it's flammable. And if released into the atmosphere in sufficient amounts and a "match" is lit - BAM! Start-over time...
So... removing the bottleneck of oil allows the methane to "ferment" into oil at a faster rate. One problem solved.
Of course, it generates numerous OTHER problems...:-)
Same for oil to coal process...
hemipwr54
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2015
So no need for the ICC panel or any further discussion of Gullible Warning or Calamity Claim.
If Gullible Warning and Calamity Claim are real, then the contention is NASA and other man made space agencies are the greatest contributors to Gullible Warning/Calamity Claim, stop them and there is no further need for any intervention.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2015
hemipwr54 muttered with evidence of some serious cognitive deficit
So no need for the ICC panel or any further discussion of Gullible Warning or Calamity Claim.
If Gullible Warning and Calamity Claim are real, then the contention is NASA and other man made space agencies are the greatest contributors to Gullible Warning/Calamity Claim, stop them and there is no further need for any intervention
Beg Pardon ?

So, r u saying we should all ignore it and not rely on ANY agencies paid by by-partisan acts of congress in USA or by public funds anywhere, r u quite sane ?

Please get a grip on; Properties of Materials in relation to heat and answer this:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 to the atmosphere, with well known & proven thermal properties somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?

Its called Physics ?

Understand instruments these days are most advanced and especially those in satellites...

Anything useful from U ?
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2015
What evidence - a link to an abstract

You can download the full pdf to the right dumb ass.

LESS energy per change, which matches the lower Total Solar Insolation as per here whilst temps STILL go up

Then why have there been numerous articles about the last 17+ years of a "pause" in warming?

u have to show it's Physics & WHY earth's field at the source MAKES heat move

Simple thermodynamics actually, the faster things move the hotter they are. For instance, we know the AMOC currents have been slowing recently, therefore less energy/heat distributed. Also the jetstream has become unstable recently, and is also slowing, thus less energy/heat.

So we have our heat distribution mechanisms changing, rapidly, so why wouldn't we see a change in climate?

Both ocean currents and the jetstream are analogous to the magnetic flux tubes (which create sunspots) that we observe in Sol, but since Earth's magnetic field is (usually) stable, they don't change as much.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2015
One further show of your idiocracy:

This is about PAST climate & there is nothing to suggest that PAST had anywhere near the "rate of change" we r experiencing NOW Eg Last 100yrs !!!


Did you even read the article before you started trolling? The title reads:

"Same forces as TODAY caused climate changes 1.4 billion years ago"

We most certainly have evidence of past climate change like this "rate of change".

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
You actually commented on this one

and finally:

http://www.charle...00yr.jpg

It was faster pre and post little ice age (no manmade CO2 for that one). It was also faster at every time the Earth has either entered or exited an interglacial period.

Your annoyance has become outstanding, and your nearly incoherent spamming is out of control, you can expect this to be my last reply to your garbage.

Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2015
Then let's just stick our heads up our asses - and pretend there is nothing to worry about. Good plan there Sherlock.

You're not getting the whole context of all my comments. Drastic actions can sometimes equate to unintended consequences. Which we then have to react to even MORE drastically...
Moderation in all things... just not might happen in YOUR lifetime, is all...
Whydening Gyre
2.7 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2015
Then let's just stick our heads up our asses - and pretend there is nothing to worry about. Good plan there Sherlock.

And I didn't say that at all, so your interpretation of my "plan" is incorrect.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
Scroof:
Also the jetstream has become unstable recently, and is also slowing, thus less energy/heat.

No, the PJS is weakening (summer) NOT because of of less energy but because of more.
You confuse a boundary being a proxy for the energy within the entire system.
On the contrary the PJS is responding to a differential heating mechanism, whereby the Arctic summer is warmer and the pole-ward deltaT less.

BTW: That graph ( http://www.charle...00yr.jpg ) originates form Dansgaard 1969 and is, err. a tad out of date.

This what climate science now considers best:

http://skepticals...full.jpg

Notice, the obviously *natural* rise in recent decades.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2015
Broken link: Try this....

https://tamino.fi...full.jpg
Whydening Gyre
3.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2015
Experts" studying something and reporting on it can also have drawbacks.


It seems very logical to me to read this statement as someone telling us that we should not be studying the issue - as that can have 'drawbacks'. Why else would you make that comment - if you were not warning us against the practice of studying the issue.?

Nope. Warning you of the necessity of vetting what is told to you by an expert.

Study the crap out of issues...;-)
You need to in order to do proper vetting.
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2015
I am not talking about me studying things like the melting ice sheets. Kind of hard to do from my living room. The issue is being studied - and there is a great vetting process called peer review. it works much better than me getting on google and thinking that I am now an expert - and know better than 10,000 scientists. I will leave that to Uba.

The more ya know, the more you understand how little we all know...
Take a look at the article ABOUT peer review...

Whydening Gyre
2.7 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2015
I do think that the issue of 'I have to personally vet this research - or I am not doing due diligence' is often used as a ruse. It seems there are a lot of conflicts on this board - that basically come down to - "I don't trust the scientists - I have to do all the validating myself". I guess it is a fundamental difference - I don't see any resolution. It does choke up these boards - but history moves on - and I think in the wider world - things are taking their course.
Things do take their course. You can be a step ahead by not accepting all things at their face value. It ain't easy, but it's necessary...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
Things do take their course. You can be a step ahead by not accepting all things at their face value. It ain't easy, but it's necessary...


Well goodness - I would never have known that I should not accept things at face value - how generous of you to school the world. (sarcasm).

The more ya know, the more you understand how little we all know...


Is this to suggest that you know more than everyone else, so of course you understand better than everyone else - how little we know? It seems pretty obvious to me how early we are in terms of understanding our universe. The bigger question that I was driving at - was how do we probe all of those things we are learning about. Perhaps magic? Perhaps spiritual enlightenment? My money is on science....

Mine too...
BTW, was just being agreeable with you in a jocular sort of way... I know LESS than most on here, and have freely admitted it. So back off on the snide comments.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2015
Well, the force of "cooking" the temperature data did not exist until now.
http://appinsys.c...e023.gif
http://appinsys.c...ates.htm
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2015
BTW, I know LESS than most on here, and have freely admitted it. So back off on the snide comments.

Forgot - If you don't mind, please...:-)
Whydening Gyre
3.3 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2015
So back off on the snide comments.


No - if you are just being jocular - then make it clear. I am tired of living in f*cked up world - and feeling that the dialogue is so skewed by the ideologues - who are opposed to progress - and want to promote pseudoscience, religion, superstition - and other bullshit. One of their tools - that they use regularly is 'can't we all just be polite, and say nice things to each other' - at the same time as being total jerks. Why don't you stop trying to control how I react. You can always put me on ignore.

Hmmm... a might touchy, this one is...:-)
You should step back and think a little about how you might be trying to control how I (and others) act with presumptive "reactions"...
Now. We can just agree that we disagree on this and move on, if you wouldn't mind...:-)
Put someone on ignore?!?! Ha !! I'd miss out on the entertainment value of this site...:-)
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
Extend an olive branch and whaddaya get? Whack!
It's a crazy world out there...
I don't know - perhaps you can see that by putting a lot of these individual posts together - I see you as someone who is piling on the anti science agenda - that is in my view - impeding us greatly from truly addressing the monumental problems we face today - and are clearly asking future generations to face.

You've spent WAY more comment energy on this than I seem to have... Thusly, impeding yourself from the job at hand...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
Experts" studying something and reporting on it can also have drawbacks.


How would I not see that as you speaking against the process of 'experts' (scientists) doing their job of figuring shit out? cont.

And you've completely ignored the first line of my next comment after that...
Artist, former computer guy and vet, here. You?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2015
"Experts" studying something ... drawbacks.(Political manipulation to name just one)
@Whyde
there seems to be some misunderstanding between you and green

if i may butt in for a quick quip:
that (above) is one reason i do not listen to "experts", but to the SCIENCE

to become an "expert" on something, one only needs to say that they are one

however to become a scientist, it requires a great deal of education and the ability to substantiate claims with evidence (as in studies, etc), use the scientific method and try to remove bias from studies

So you have one very good point: forget about the "experts"
(and i would continue that quote with: and follow the SCIENCE - notice i didn't specify the PERSON, but the SCIENCE - EVIDENCE)

i return you to the regularly scheduled argument

@scroof
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
http://iopscience...4005.pdf
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015
As you may have gathered - not too interested in olive branches.
@Greenonions
you should seriously reconsider

there is ENOUGH misinformation being spread around by the deniers and stupid people, religious morons, political hacks and the truly ignorant parrots out there... we should NOT be fighting amongst ourselves.

if Whyde wants to sit the fence, it is HIS Prerogative

i was once a skeptic too... until i started READING THE SCIENCE
then i chose to update my education too: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

i read the science, not the stupid
if there is NO science supporting something, i ignore it
i follow the EVIDENCE where it takes me... and it takes ME to the conclusions of AGW

but not everyone moves at the same pace

I am sincerely requesting you both try to bury the hatchet and get back OT
PLEASE

TIA
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2015
It's a crazy world out there...


Could you see that I would see that as a cop out? I deliberately choose the term f*cked up when looking at the mess we currently have.

Nope. wasn't even talking about the world situation. Don't let it get the better of you.
I just counted this thread - whydening - 17 comments - Greenonions 11 comments.

None of MINE being personal attacks on YOU...

Sign language interpreter - ex computer guy - ex educator - now studying python programing - hoping to make another career move - what does that have to do with anything?

Just a yardstick...
Look. I love/trust science and all it does and can do for us. I'm just a little less trusting than some when it comes to jumping on a wagon.
Maybe it's the left handed in me...

Anyway. Good luck with your career move, BTW. (sincerely extended, NOT sarcasm)
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015
Whydening
None of MINE being personal attacks on YOU...


Wow - I just re-read all 11 of my posts - and I did not see anything that I would characterize as a personal attack on you. Some sarcasm - that I designated as such - and definitely some snark.

Maybe I just read it wrong...

Anyway - you say you love/trust science - I was picking up that you were being derogatory to that process. I apologize for being too quick on the snark. I do think we have a communication style difference. See my response to Captain Stumpy to maybe get a sense of that issue.

Apologies for that, then...
Just an easy going guy that occasionally likes to shake things up a bit...
(hey - it's fun)

Thanks for the good wishes - it is a long term process - probably wont make a move for a couple of years.

Best wishes with that. A handshake agreement to drop it, then?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2015
Best wishes with that. A handshake agreement to drop it, then?


You got - and I will have a lot better context from now on - know you just like to shake things up. Thanks.

Buenos! Let's get out there and conquer the worlds problems then!
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2015
...someone camping out in Antarctica.

THAT's the guy I trust...
It's the guy "interpreting for the lay public" who I feel it's appropriate to question.. cuz it's tuff to get down to and relay the real "camped out in Antarctica" bone...
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2015
He is an 'expert' in his field
@greenonions
you got that wrong
first off, he is not JUST an expert, he is ALSO a trained professional and a SCIENTIST
that is a person worth listening to about his field
HOWEVER
MOST of the people (especially in the media) are NOT experts in the field as much as they are experts in NAME
and the ONLY qualification one need to consider themselves "expert" is to put it on a business card or tell someone that they are one

which is my POINT about experts

now, if i was listening to a person expound on biology and they said they were an expert, i would ask for qualifications

the BEST demonstration of this is jvk on this site... he CLAIMS to be an expert, but is far less accurate in biology as an EMT and has FAR LESS knowledge than ANON, Antialias_Physorg, RealScience and other posters

and HE is published (just like i am, and the others mentioned above)

the point is
an EXPERT isn't always a professional or even knowledgeable

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2015
themes from the anti science folks - is don't trust the scientists - as they have a political agenda....that trope from Whyde
@greenonions
and don't let Whyde fool you with his "im an artist" line either
it is crap
well, not really
he IS an artist
but he also has a good head on his shoulders
you should watch his toying with people in physics/astrophysics threads... LOL

but back to my topic re: experts

your friend is what i would personally call an expert because he is a professional in the field & has a vested interest in presenting the information carefully and accurately

most "EXPERTS" are not this way
(you see this a lot when investigating)

he would be considered as such in a court room
but jvk would NOT be considered as such in the same courtroom for the same case

there are differences

one reason deniers use that trope is because they don't understand SCIENCE (or its methods)
and they think everyone is like them: LIARS and delusional
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2015
I guess I always conflated 'scientist' - with 'expert'. Language can be problematic. I see your point about some people who may be considered experts
@green
you are welcome
that is why i am very hesitant about links that are not studies

see, there are far too many people using the semantics argument
(meaning: this person claims to be an expert, thus the science MUST BE equal to your study)
and deniers are the WORST about it

that is the problem with the title expert

i really wish they would go with the "expert" definition as per the court system, which requires a person not only demonstrate knowledge, but also prove the validity of their claims as well as provide irrefutable evidence of their background which would entitle them to the title "expert witness"

i always remember Rule37 - "There are no such things as (insert claims being made here) on the internet"

and the best way to combat the "experts" on the forums?
with studies

:-)
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2015
watching how we are squandering - with stuff like ISIS cutting people's heads off
@Green
never let the stupidity of the fanatical religious keep you from doing anything
i've grown up with terrorism... they are nothing more than bullies
they FEED off of terror... and if they make you hesitate even for a second, they've won

as for politicians... there will always be crooked politicians as long as there are people with lots of money willing to "support" politicians for the sake of getting their way, be it big business, big oil, or anything else

and there is no real way to combat politicians and their LACK of scientific acumen as long as the general public is still so scientifically illiterate

once we can change THAT, we can change the politicians
until then...
i have no idea except do your own thing and try to force the change at your level first

it is bound to grow if it is based upon sound principles, logic and science
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2015
My part - is to learn a system called permaculture. If we employed the priniciples of permaculture in our land use practice (especially residential) - we could probably pretty much eradicate hunger, reduce our pollution and waste problem, and free up vast amount of land to become wild life habitat. We just have to break through the barriers of ignorance - in order to start getting serious about the issues. Perhaps all in good time.

Good part to play...:-)
I too, am attempting to be/live more synchronous with my surroundings...
And I think there might be more of us than you'd think...:-)
Cap'n Stump (the bear f**ker - but just once ) is one of them...:-)
BTW - have a daughter who really is a scientist. Unfortunately, she is divorcing and subsequently moving back in with us.... On the plus side, grandson is moving with her...:-)
Hopefully I can impart some of what I'm learning to him...
Ryan1981
3 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2015
Now researchers from China National Petroleum Corporation. . . . .
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2015
In another report

A multinational research team, led by scientists at the University of Southampton, has analysed new records showing the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere between 2.3 to 3.3 million years ago, over the Pliocene.
During the Pliocene, the Earth was around 2ºC warmer than it is today and atmospheric CO2 levels were around 350-400 parts per million (ppm), similar to the levels reached in recent years.
NASA measured it at 403.26ppm yesterday and the trend is towards 500ppm in a decade or two. That's more CO2 than just about anytime in history and more heat trapping than anytime in history. This article implies that we are in a period of high solar input, when others say we are in a period of low solar input. Currently all science points toward CO2 being the lead cause of global warming with other factors hardly registering an uptick.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2015
NASA measured it at 403.26ppm yesterday and the trend is towards 500ppm in a decade or two. That's more CO2 than just about anytime in history and more heat trapping than anytime in history.

And yet it is up Zero from Gore's a "Gobal Warning," and yet, the Earth is not warmer than ever in history...
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2015
NASA measured it at 403.26ppm yesterday and the trend is towards 500ppm in a decade or two. That's more CO2 than just about anytime in history and more heat trapping than anytime in history.

And yet it is up Zero from Gore's a "Gobal Warning," and yet, the Earth is not warmer than ever in history...

Oh please... you don't honestly believe that crap? 2014 was the hottest year for global temperatures in recorded history, and also the warmest ever for ocean temps too. See:
http://www.ncdc.n.../2014/12
If you like pretty pictures; scroll down to the Global Climate Dashboard.
https://www.clima...aps-data
Our climate has accumulated 2,204,837,415 and growing. Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat since 1998!
http://4hiroshimas.com/
For an explanation;
https://www.youtu...YdSF7bKg

The planet is actually entering the warmest extended period for 10000s of years. It's just to damn hot!
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2015
OK, I'll play. The Earth is warmer than ever in history, but CO2 is not up from Al Gore days.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2015
don't let Whyde fool you with his "im an artist" line either
it is crap
well, not really
he IS an artist
but he also has a good head on his shoulders
you should watch his toying with people in physics/astrophysics threads... LOL

BTW, Cap'n - thanks for the (undeserved) compliments...

howhot2
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2015
OK, I'll play. The Earth is warmer than ever in history, but CO2 is not up from Al Gore days.

I don't understand what you mean. Gore and I are the same age. I remember when he pushed to fund the "Internet". He did do that as Senator from TN. He was kind of stiff, but he wasn't bad or ill meaning like the 47 senators just tried to dick over Obama. I really wish we had more people like Al Gore. The world would be a better place.
DarkLordKelvin
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2015
OK, I'll play. The Earth is warmer than ever in history, but CO2 is not up from Al Gore days.

*sigh* more vaguely defined and unsupported claims. What are "Al Gore" days .. has he stopped advocating for more climate awareness, and limits on GHG emissions? Why can't you just give a year? Also, annually averaged CO2 (there are regular seasonal variations) has been rising steadily according to every available measure I have seen .. where do you get the idea it has plateaued?
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2015
What are "Al Gore" days

I think what WP is referring to is that he/she has a CO2 meter at the house and the claim is that it's registering ~380 - which was likely the global CO2 level in 2006 when "An Inconvenient Truth" came out. Of course, it's been pointed out to WP that CO2 levels vary through the day and year and over the earth, so just because CO2 levels measure ~400 in Mauna Loa doesn't mean that CO2 levels can't be ~380 in WP's backyard. Like the CO2 forcing value, this isn't something that WP wants to hear, so it's ignored.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2015
Imagine this -
(inserting wild hypothesis here)
biology dies, breaks down to carbon, which then sits in the ground "fermenting" into methane, oil and eventually coal.
Too much methane built up creates a problem - it's flammable. And if released into the atmosphere in sufficient amounts and a "match" is lit - BAM! Start-over time...
So... removing the bottleneck of oil allows the methane to "ferment" into oil at a faster rate. One problem solved.
Of course, it generates numerous OTHER problems...:-)
Same for oil to coal process...


@WG,

Are you trying to _seriously_ put forward these claims?

If so, then I, for one, would very much like to see your supporting citations.

Or is this really just a case of my having misunderstood what was intended as spoof, satire or sarcasm?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2015
zz5555, sorry "ignore" was no defense for you this time.

I measure CO2 before traffic starts and track it.
It should never be able to go below 400, right?
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2015
Imagine this -
(inserting wild hypothesis here)
biology dies, breaks down to carbon, which then sits in the ground "fermenting" into methane, oil and eventually coal.
Too much methane built up creates a problem - it's flammable. And if released into the atmosphere in sufficient amounts and a "match" is lit - BAM! Start-over time...
So... removing the bottleneck of oil allows the methane to "ferment" into oil at a faster rate. One problem solved.
Of course, it generates numerous OTHER problems...:-)
Same for oil to coal process...


@WG,

Are you trying to _seriously_ put forward these claims?

If so, then I, for one, would very much like to see your supporting citations.

Or is this really just a case of my having misunderstood what was intended as spoof, satire or sarcasm?

You obviously missed the "inserting wild hypothesis here" part....
That said, however.... within the limit of possibility...
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2015
I measure CO2 before traffic starts and track it.
It should never be able to go below 400, right?

I asked you before, but you never answered, so here goes again: Why not? (Actually, you did answer with: "CO2 levels should not be able to go below the true average." Which is a bizarre and very silly statement.)

Here's a 24-hour monitor of CO2 levels in Utah: http://weather.us...ntration . So obviously it isn't uniform through the day. Observations show that CO2 levels aren't uniform throughout the world (http://www.esrl.n...tracker/ ). Observations also show that CO2 levels vary over the seasons of a year (https://www2.ucar...-dioxide ). "Well-mixed" does not mean "uniform over the earth".
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2015
Water_Prophet showed proof he doesn't understand simple MATH
I measure CO2 before traffic starts and track it.
It should never be able to go below 400, right?
LOL !

Water_Prophet, desperately needs an education in how averages re calculated and just how to correctly interpret CO2 monitoring stations and WHY they are located where they are:-
https://en.wikipe.../Average

Just how is your domestic CO2 meter calibrated & what caveats are in place for it ?
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2015
Just how is your domestic CO2 meter calibrated & what caveats are in place for it ?

This is a very good question and one I've considered asking (but discussing anything with WP is generally pointless, so I've refrained). I was looking at what CO2 units provide in terms of accuracy and found one that was accurate to +/-7% (others I've seen have had a similar accuracy). So at a reading of 380, that means that the error could be as large as 26.6. Which means the actual value could be above 400. WP might claim that his meter is extremely accurate, but since WP has said that he's either a very gullible person or a liar, I'm not sure why anyone would believe him.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2015
zz5555 observed
I was looking at what CO2 units provide in terms of accuracy and found one that was accurate to +/-7% (others I've seen have had a similar accuracy). So at a reading of 380, that means that the error could be as large as 26.6. Which means the actual value could be above 400. WP might claim that his meter is extremely accurate, but since WP has said that he's either a very gullible person or a liar, I'm not sure why anyone would believe him.
Best accuracy I've seen is around 3% which is still not particularly good for anything approaching the terms of reference necessary for Water_Prophet to make any sort of credible claim...

Asked him twice make & model but, he never responded :-(

I used to work on contract for Gastech in Western Australia on CO meter sensor 4-20mA loop ampilifers ie nA from the CO fuel cell to deliver a current loop signal, we were looking at 50ppm, ostensibly only for car parks to turn on the fans !

All sensors can saturate !
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2015

You obviously missed the "inserting wild hypothesis here" part....
That said, however.... within the limit of possibility...


WG,

Can't let this pass. "...within the limit of possibility..." is...most definitely not.

However, I'll forego the customary rant/tirade, and leave you with this:

http://www.fe.doe...med.html

...good enough as a primer on just exactly how fossil fuels are formed, and more than enough
--or at least, so one hopes-- to disabuse you of your curious misconceptions in that regard.

You can thank me later.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2015
Well, zzzzzzz, you actually had something interesting to contribute!

Yeah, so if Mt Macadamia Nut Island is measure a good sample of the worlds CO2 from isolation. It should be measuring its baseline, right? All those pesky ups and down smoothed out? That's the premise of using Mona Loa, right?
So it should be the true bottom.
If I lived, say, in the middle of three major metropolis, than I should expect to get high than a remote mean, shouldn't I?

Work it out for yourself.

Domestic? It's a lab meter.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2015
What meter would meet your approval? I'll buy that one and compare between the two.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Work it out for yourself.

Domestic? It's a lab meter.
Make & model of your Meter please ?

So its not an industrial meter with a qualified calibration procedure then ?

So sad :-(

CO2's thermal resistivity in Watts per square meter ?

Y can't U ?
DarkLordKelvin
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2015
Yeah, so if Mt Macadamia Nut Island is measure a good sample of the worlds CO2 from isolation. It should be measuring its baseline, right? All those pesky ups and down smoothed out?
No, why would you even claim that, when it's so easy to check, and checking proves your statement wrong: http://www.esrl.n...cord.gif
That's the premise of using Mona Loa, right?
Isolation is one of the reasons, but more important is that Mauna Loa uses spectroscopic measurements that would suffer more interference at a lower altitude.
So it should be the true bottom.
If I lived, say, in the middle of three major metropolis, than I should expect to get high than a remote mean, shouldn't I?
Maybe, maybe not .. your haven't specified the experimental protocols you use for your measurements. I am particularly interested in your calibration procedure.

Work it out for yourself.

Domestic? It's a lab meter.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2015
DLK, quibbling again. That data looks pretty smooth and consistent to me. Looks too good if you ask me.
It shows everyone all your statements are designed to do is discredit. Very immature and a losing stance.

The meter is a marv., of modern science. You calibrate it right through your computer. I know you're going to mock the calibration protocol, but it follows the standard. 2 knowns around the area of interest, the machine works it's magic to make the values right in between and around.
DarkLordKelvin
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2015
DLK, quibbling again. That data looks pretty smooth and consistent to me.
Review your comments below, as well as my own and zzzz's, and see if you can figure out for yourself why a reasonable person might think it's a refutation of what you wrote.
Looks too good if you ask me.
Compared to what, and what are you trying to imply .. that Mauna Loa is faking or manipulating their data? Why not just come out and say it then?
It shows everyone all your statements are designed to do is discredit.
I only aim to discredit your false or incorrect claims, and I only take that tack with you because you write your posts as if you hold some position of scientific authority. If you would show a shred of humility, or respect for the knowledge and experience of others, you would enable your interlocutors to take a much less hard-edged stance. As it is, you fairly goad us into it with your persistent sophistry and deceptive tactics, which are anathema to scientists.
DarkLordKelvin
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2015
The meter is a marv., of modern science. You calibrate it right through your computer.
Can you provide the make and model please?
I know you're going to mock the calibration protocol but it follows the standard.
I am not sure what you mean by "the standard" here .. are you referring to some sort of industry standard?
2 knowns around the area of interest
So, what are those two "knowns" in your case, what were their values and how did you verify them?
the machine works it's magic to make the values right in between and around.
Well, probably it just calibrates a voltage or amperage scale to some sort of response curve (probably linear). Depending on what kind of sensor it uses, it may require fairly frequent recalibration, or at least checking against standard values .. gas sensors can be finicky that way.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2015
Well DLA, 2x1000 word posts and nothing to say.
Calibration:
No not probably, that's how they all work, voltage anyway, amperes show how little you know. If I tell you the model you'll just dump on it. Tell me a model that meets your approval, I may get it and compare.
Standards are just standards, and it is also self-calibrating, which, however it works, works very well.

Yeah, ignoring you is the right decision.
DarkLordKelvin
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2015
Well DLA, 2x1000 word posts and nothing to say.
Calibration:
No not probably, that's how they all work, voltage anyway, amperes show how little you know. If I tell you the model you'll just dump on it. Tell me a model that meets your approval, I may get it and compare.
Standards are just standards, and it is also self-calibrating, which, however it works, works very well.

Yeah, ignoring you is the right decision.

Why are you being so insufferably obtuse? You never said it was self-calibrating, did you? So you don't think curiosity about the "knowns" used for your 2-point calibration is natural? Even if it is self-calibrating, aren't you the least bit curious how that process works internally? How does it simulate CO2-free vs. 500 ppm .. or whatever the calibration points are? I want to know the model because I want to look that stuff up in the manual. Finally, some gas sensors use current, e.g. electrochemical CO sensors, or both I & V, e.g. pirani gauges.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2015
It should be measuring its baseline, right? All those pesky ups and down smoothed out? That's the premise of using Mona Loa, right?

Umm, no. Why did you think that. There are a number of monitoring stations for CO2 (one's in the middle of San Francisco). I pointed out this page before: https://www.clima...mosphere . Why didn't you look at it? A large part of the earth shown on that page is at a lower CO2 level than Hawaii. There are a number of reasons for that.

But let's think about your meter. You say it reads 380 as a minimum at night. You also say that it displayed that minimum at the end of December and is still doing in the middle of March. This all indicates there's something wrong with your meter. First, the CO2 minimum occurs late in daylight hours because plants consume CO2 during the day. In addition, plants give off CO2 at night.

Cont.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2015
Second, CO2 levels change from month to month. During winter, CO2 levels increase until plants start to grow again. And in summer CO2 decreases until plants start to die back and rot. (I couldn't find any hourly CO2 data except for Hawaii, so it's possible that in the dead of winter you might experience a CO2 minimum at night).

But let's say your meter is working. You give values of 380 as a minimum. Is the 402 value at Mauna Loa a minimum or a maximum? Neither - it's an average. So the minimum would be ~398. Now since you gave 380 as a minimum at two different times of year, that can't be right, so you must be rounding. And since CO2 levels are still increasing (assuming NH), the current value must be larger. We'll assume 385. Now your meter has an error of some kind. The best I've seen is +/-5%. That would be +/-19.25 for your case. 385 + 19.25 = 404.25 which is most certainly bigger than 398. So there's no reason to believe that your CO2 level is less than Hawaii's.

Cont
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2015
I'll point out that if you're uncomfortable with thinking about margins of error, that indicates another flaw in your thinking. If you really think your meter is giving you a result with absolutely no error, than you're more gullible than you've indicated. You can also claim that your meter is more accurate than +/-5%, but, you know, it's the internet and you can claim whatever you want. You haven't displayed a great deal of integrity so far in your comments, so you'll pardon us for taking your claims with an enormous grain of salt.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2015
Well, thank you so much zzzzzzz, but I can watch traffic increase in the mornings using the meter. Does that put things into perspective for you?

Yes, with a lag, it's not a CO2 camera.

But thanks for your critique, I find it patronizing and poorly considered.
380ppm is indeed an "about," figure, not an accurate one. It is skewed greatly above, probably like a Poisson distribution, but I HAVEN'T plotted it. You make all the assumptions you want, but don't inflict idiotic ones on me.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2015
WG,
Can't let this pass. "...within the limit of possibility..." is...most definitely not.

However, I'll forego the customary rant/tirade, and leave you with this:

http://www.fe.doe...med.html

You can thank me later.

Found this one, too..
http://www.ems.ps...Gas.html
I would say that from a PROBABILITY standpoint, you are more than likely correct.
However - As an artist, I live in a universe where "possibilities" are open ended sets....:-)
So I dabble...:-)
But, regardless - thanks for the additional input...;-)
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2015
But, regardless - thanks for the additional input...;-)

It will assist me further in refinement and "fermenting" of my little thought experiment...:-)
DarkLordKelvin
4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2015
Well, thank you so much zzzzzzz, but I can watch traffic increase in the mornings using the meter. Does that put things into perspective for you?

Yes, with a lag, it's not a CO2 camera.

But thanks for your critique, I find it patronizing and poorly considered.
380ppm is indeed an "about," figure, not an accurate one. It is skewed greatly above, probably like a Poisson distribution
why a Poisson distribution, specifically
but I HAVEN'T plotted it.
Well, why not? Wouldn't that be an interesting scientific exercise? Pick a few times each day where you record the reading and enter it in a spreadsheet? Then you could tell us an average value, and look at short and long term oscillations, and compare them to the Mauna Loa trends.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2015
but I can watch traffic increase in the mornings using the meter. Does that put things into perspective for you?

Sure. I've had instruments that bias low or high on a regular basis. Sometimes they bias high in one regime and low in another. It's a normal fact of life when dealing with experimental work - and one reason that most data deals with anomalies and not absolute values. You need to account for it.
380ppm is indeed an "about," figure, not an accurate one.

Excellent. So it seems my analysis was correct. There's nothing (from what we know right now) that indicates that your readings are anything unusual.

DarkLordKelvin:
Well, why not? Wouldn't that be an interesting scientific exercise?

I agree. I do this with data all the time. Now that this has come up, I'm kind of interested in getting a CO2 meter myself and following along. This sounds like fun to me (I'm quite the life of the party, aren't I? ;)
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2015
why a Poisson distribution, specifically
but I HAVEN'T plotted it.
Well, why not? Wouldn't that be an interesting scientific exercise? Pick a few times each day where you record the reading and enter it in a spreadsheet? Then you could tell us an average value, and look at short and long term oscillations, and compare them to the Mauna Loa trends.


WhaaaT!!! And do Science!?!?! But that would force him to reconsider this mechanical heating theory that he has held so dear for lo the past 30 years!

It is entertaining to see everyone playing him for a fool, and hilarious to see him fall for it over and over, but the encouragement of his trolling on this site is becoming boorish.

He has never, not one single time, ever, provided any quantitative support for his claim that mechanical heating of the atmosphere is more important that CO2 loading.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2015
zzzz555; A CO2 meter provides hours of entertainment. It does let you know, though, that CO2 levels in your home become "marginal" ~1000+ more often than you'd think. Which is also an indicator of a lack of thermal effects.

After that it just sits there.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2015
A CO2 meter provides hours of entertainment. It does let you know, though, that CO2 levels in your home become "marginal" ~1000+ more often than you'd think.

That might be interesting, as well, but I'd be more interested in external CO2 levels. At least in the spring and summer there shouldn't be much trouble inside since our cooling system needs us to keep the windows open.

Which is also an indicator of a lack of thermal effects.

Only if your house lacks a roof (and is likely much bigger than any normal house).
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2015
Yeah, 10 out of 10 for not understanding physics.
I'd explain, but we've been over this, back to the ignored house, I hope you enjoyed being out of it a while.

I hope you enjoy insulation working far away from you, but not being detectable next to you. Unless, it is convenient to your AGW, then it works fine right?
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2015
Yeah, 10 out of 10 for not understanding physics.
I'd explain, but we've been over this, back to the ignored house, I hope you enjoyed being out of it a while.


"You'd explain"?

Why do you even bother to make such a claim, since you've failed --and utterly-- to do so to date? A brass bowl heated by a flame isn't a warm, humid house, which sure as f**k isn't our planetary atmosphere, much less the complex hydro/litho/atmosphere.

The fact that you continue to try to equate any and all of them PUTS THE LIE to ANY CLAIM YOU MAKE to possessing any understanding of physical chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics, and the ways in which they interact in the planetary atmosphere and climate system complex hex.

Do you never tire of displaying your stupidiosity?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2015
Water_Prophet with immense hypocrisy
Yeah, 10 out of 10 for not understanding physics.
I'd explain, but we've been over this, back to the ignored house, I hope you enjoyed being out of it a while.
I hope you enjoy insulation working far away from you, but not being detectable next to you. Unless, it is convenient to your AGW, then it works fine right?
OBVIOUSLY U know nothing of radiative emissions re vibrational states of CO2 & Infra-red !

Why can U NOT work out CO2's thermal resistivity in W/m^2 ?

What the f..k is wrong with U - a claimed Physical Chemist who also claims 3 other technical degrees !

Was Physics not one required pre-requisite ?

Are you, ill, stupid, disabled or paid to sell your integrity telling lies ?

Y can't U prove your claim CO2 is "anemic" ?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
These are accurate to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, where ever it is not obvious
So as a scientist u confirm they could be out by more than 100x, in fact 499x because Doh, 2 orders is less than 3 orders (ie 1000x) note in terms of median 499x may be correctly considered as less than 3 orders of magnitude ie therefore 2

Slimey Water_Prophet stated
Ave Allocation Average Temp C
...
0.043 Watts/m2 19 Clouds
0.00042 Watts/m2 19 GHG soot smog (air only)
0.00009 Watts/m2 19 GHG CO2
0.00003 Watts/m2 19 GHG Methane, etc.
Why r yours NOWHERE near wikipedia's figures:-

https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Do u see Water_Prophet Y its OBVIOUS u have NO idea or faked the figures ?

Your CO2 & multiply by highest "2 orders of magnitude" ie 499 then multiply by difference in ppm ie 400-280 hey guess what !

U get close, now go back with algebra & get your actual magnitude error :-)

LOL

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.