13

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 3 weeks ago to Science
117 comments | Share | Flag

The Vostok Revelation by Me. https://www.amazon.com/Vostok-Revelat...

General web searching my novel titles as I do fairly regularly I came across this bit of factual info about Lake Vostok in Antarctica. Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, the CO2 reading from tens of thousands of years ago are for the most part consistent with CO2 levels today.

If I'm reading this correctly, this deflates man made global warming entirely.

Please read and either confirm or correct.what I'm thinking.
SOURCE URL: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Ben_C 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    OK sports fans. How much continental ice is present in liters and if completely melted how much of an influence will this have on sea levels. My Google search is not rewarding given all I read is scientific rhetoric with a gazillion qualifiers. Lots of puffery without substance.
    Also, my dad worked for NASA (two masters degrees in engineering - nuclear physics) and really slammed the global warming religion. He pointed out a ton of flaws in the quasi science behind the hypothesis and even the tools used for data collection.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Nat Geog magazine published a map showing "what if" all ice melted. The max possible rise in sea level is 216ft from today, allowing for coastal topography. They said this could be the end result from fossil fuel use, but I don't think that is possible. It has happened before, but only with massive extra CO2 from volcanism which is unlikely again. My opinion is the maximum fossil fuel effect will be a lot less than that, as I would not expect to lose all continental ice.
      http://www.nationalgeographic.com/mag...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Ben_C 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        It is the continental ice, not the ice cubes floating in the sea, that may have an effect on ocean levels. I haven't read the article nor looked at the authors credentials to accept the premise. When I do this I find most authors are biased by their funding.
        The underlying driving force of the "climate change" crowd is the political agenda of redistribution of wealth via carbon taxes and credits. Look at Al Gores latest agenda and tell me its not about the money.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          Yes, politics is always only about the money. There are two different discussions. People grabbing money does not disprove the idea.
          The link I posted here is not about the article, which knowing the publication is probably exaggerated and designed to scare readers anyway. The link was a reply to the question about the maximum potential sea level if we had no ice left at all. They have a good map of the theoretical coastline. I'm not suggesting it will happen, as I said that before.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by stephenwv 2 months ago
            The earth will warm at least another 2 degrees before the glacial cooling cycle takes over.

            No intelligent person denies climate change. Yet so called scientists ignore and deny the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event... the 100,000 year glacial cycle. How can they call themselves scientists when they ignore over 1 million years of science?

            I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.

            Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event in their computer models. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.

            There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

            Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government's NOAA web site. (Link below).

            About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.

            So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN IPCC FINALLY agrees by their statement recently: that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees... The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.

            Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)... it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-clim...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    Co2 responds to climate, in data sets co2 follows warming it doesn't cause it. http://principia-scientific.org/physi...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      In all reports of CO2 lagging temperature, the quoted error margin is always much larger than the estimated lag. Also, no mechanism has been put forward for the cause of any "leading" temperature change, or what would cause the CO2 to lag.
      I conclude the lag does not exist in reality. It is just wishful thinking by those who want to think fossil fuels don't contribute.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        A lot of carbon is held in the ocean, warmer temperatures cause the oceans to release it. So, warm the earth and CO2 rises, lagging after the heat.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          Ocean warming cannot be a mechanism which leads to warming climate. Oceans have huge thermal inertia, so will always be much slower to change temp than the atmosphere. Anyway, it is not an explanation unless there is a reason the oceans spontaneously heat up before the atmosphere.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            I didn't say the oceans heated before the atmosphere. The Vostok Ice core shows a linkage between temperature and CO2 which has CO2 trailing temperature by up to 100 years.

            This argues for a heating mechanism other than CO2 that increases the temperature of the biosphere and leads to increased CO2 after a number of years.

            There is some interesting work by Svensmark that indicates that cosmic ray interaction with cloud cover is a climate driver driven by variations in the 11 year solar cycle.

            The has been recent analysis of the 11 year solar cycle to find a pattern that accurately predicts the variations. Climate does seem to follow this cycle. If this is the case,we should see a Maunder Minimum in the next cycle about 2030. The Maunder Minimum is associated with the little ice age. The previous cycle is associated with the rise of the black death at the end of a cold period.

            He has even speculated that the orbit of the solar system in the galactic plane causes periodic increase in cosmic rays which may account for the regular appearances of ice ages. I'm not sure I buy all this but it's interesting.

            The climate is far more complex than simply measuring CO2. It would be nice to have real science done rather than political science.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              The CO2 lag could be longer than 100yrs, this article says it could anywhere from 0 to 1000yrs. My point was only that the error margin is even larger. This article says the age difference between the air and the ice in a given sample was increased to 6000yrs from previous estimates of 4000yrs. Latching on to the "lag" suggestion, while ignoring wide error margin, it a good example of confirmation bias.

              Yes, of course the solar cycles have an effect, but we cannot influence them. We do however influence the CO2 levels.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  edweaver 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                One only has to go into the mountains to disprove the theory that CO2 traps heat. If atmospheric CO2 trapped heat then it would be hot in the mountains and that is just not true.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  Please explain your link between the mountains and CO2.
                  Never heard that one before :)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  edweaver 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                    If the atmospheric CO2 (above the mountains) trapped heat, the higher elevations in the mountains would be the same temperature as the earths surface.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                      but what is the link? why do you think CO2 is more "above the mountains"? and why has local (mountain) weather have anything to do with global climate?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  edweaver 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                        It is not specific to the mountains nor is it more above the mountains. Open up the window of any airplane at an altitude above 10,000 feet and see if you can stay warm. Heat rises and cold falls. It doesn't make any difference if there is a layer of insulation, heat & cold still swap places. If they didn't, heating would not be required on the earth's surface. One would just need a layer of insulation and they'd be good to go.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                          The temperature falls as the air pressure decreases. As you get to the upper layers of the atmosphere there is almost no air, and so almost no heat. It is basic physics, it has nothing to do with climate.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            salta says-
            'In all reports of CO2 lagging temperature, .. '
            CO2 lags as it is comes out of solution as water warms. (Henry's Law).
            The earth and its oceans warmed in the medieval warm period, then cooled in the
            little ice age.
            These changes are linked to changes in solar activity, evidenced by sun spots, -
            radiation that influences Earth's cloud formation. Changes in atmospheric CO2
            follow. Thus CO2 does not control temperature, it is the other way round.

            These points also elaborate salta's next post.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Quoting a phrase out of context does not help your point. The rest of my sentence about the lag pointed out that the error margin in all those reports is much larger than the reported lag. So the lag might not have existed.
              If you "feel" that your knowledge is better than the science papers from where you get that knowledge, you should probably think it through a bit more.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                The 800 year lag is quite widely reported in the literature.
                You are of course correct, the lag could be a hundred or a few thousand years. The evidence for exactly 800 is weak. A firm conclusion however, is that AlGore's proposition, that CO2 causes (leads) global temperature, is wrong.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  Yes, it is "widely reported". And all that tells you is many people have the emotional response to latch onto that data alone, because it gives them the feel-good factor. It is a much easier response than to attack socialist policies for what they really are.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        Yes no mechanism has been put forward .I will put one forward for you the SUN.
        “[V]ariations in solar energy output have far more effect on Earth’s climate than soccer moms driving SUVs,” Southwestern Law School professor Joerg Knipprath, writes in his ‘Token Conservative’ blog. “A rational thinker would understand that, especially if he or she has some understanding of the limits of human influence. But the global warming boosters have this unbounded hubris that it is humans who control nature, and that human activity can terminally despoil the planet as well as cause its salvation.”
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          Temperature hot and cold All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jacket because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

          If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            Yes, the sun generates ALL the heat which is relevant to climate. That is no surprise to anyone on either side of the debate, so I'm not sure how it is a useful point. The only variable we have influence over is how much of that energy is retained by variations in levels of CO2.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Specific gravity is the weight of a gas compared with air. Carbon Dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air. It is the same weight as propane and anyone who uses propane knows it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide sinks into our storm drains and into the ground like a puddle of water.

              Does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite.

              The affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                CO2 was shown to absorb IR radiation in the 1800s. Each photon absorbed is translated into heat. Energy cannot be destroyed.

                CO2 only sinks in very calm local conditions (like your drain example). In the lower atmosphere (biosphere levels) it is well mixed with the other gases. But mixing is irrelevant to the IR absorption anyway.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Here is one problem with CO2 being the main absorber of heat and then heating the atmosphere. There is one molecule of CO2 to 2500 molecules of air. The N2, O2, and Ar do not absorb well and must be heated by either conduction from the surface or (leaving out the heating from H2O) by heat transfer from CO2. Also, CO2 is a linear molecule which gives it some difficulty with absorbing and emitting radiation unlike H2O which is a polar molecule and which can absorb well and then transfer heat to the other atmosphere components as well as radiate energy out of the lower atmosphere. The temperature of the atmosphere is the result of the motions of all the air particles and not just to the motion of CO2 and its radiation. Since the atmosphere without CO2 and H2O would have a hard time to remove energy due to conduction from the ground, the greenhouse gases are most likely needed to radiate heat energy from the atmosphere to outer space.
              If any control of CO2 is done it should increased per volume since it is quite low for plants which evolved when CO2 was more than ten times more abundant. They are the most abundant plant species. As atmospheric CO2 percentage decreased some other photosynthesis processes evolved which can better use CO2 at present levels but if one wishes to feed increasing human populations in the future, more atmospheric CO2 will be greatly needed.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                Yes, H2O vapour is also a GHG, but its levels are controlled by the weather (evaporation and cloud formation) not by humans. CO2 is being influenced by humans.
                Yes, it is true that plants will have faster growth with higher CO2 but it is slight, and yield increase from other technologies will far outweight that slight advantage. The drawbacks are far more serious.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  What drawbacks and why are they serious? Just a lot of speculation from some mental mathematical and emotional fear. Where do you get you fear from? Most wildlife is doing fine, especially those cuddly polar bears, with hardly any extinctions being recorded. The Earth, itself, not being a living thing, cannot be hurt. Life goes on, changing to the better when governments stick to the minor roles that they should have.

                  H2O is a much stronger GHG and is several percent of the atmosphere compared to a lesser GHG, CO2, at 0.04%. Besides, H2O's latent heat of evaporation is a major means of removing heat from the land and water and then out of the lower atmosphere through radiation from condensation.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  Drawbacks more serious? Oh like the recent California drought that Proved global warming.
                  Or the record crop yields that have occurred in the previous 4 years. When global warming predictors started in the late eighties Miami was to be 5 feet under water by 2010.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                    No single incident proves anything. Thats not logical. It sounds more like you are getting your core principles from news headlines :)
                    No higher crop yield would not be a drawback, but it is unlikely that is really due to CO2. Other technologies will always dwarf any small CO2 yield benefit.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                      Tuesday, 18 February 2014
                      Obama Ludicrously Links California Drought to Climate Change

                      You claim Drawbacks I'm sure you are worried about rising sea levels . it has been a scare tactic used for 30 years.

                      But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.


                      Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
                      Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.


                      The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                        Quoting one scientist's opinion is about as valuable as our common opponents quoting Al Gore. As I have said elsewhere, none of these opinions or modern data or 50yr snapshots of sea levels does anything to refute (a) the simple linkage of processes involved in warming or (b) the strong paleo correlation with sea levels and CO2. If you find anything which does, please let me know.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                          Ignoring one scientist who has devoted his career on studying sea levels and comparing him with a liberal elitist collectivist is so liberal like.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                            Please, I wasn't comparing Gore with a scientist!
                            I was saying any single opinion has no value, no matter whose.
                            At the same time, any majority opinion has no value... Just because most people agree that fossil carbon is effecting climate does not mean that they are correct. The logic and simplicity of the concept makes it correct in my mind, because it has not yet been refuted.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                A well written article (as we would expect, of course). He provides a good summary of the basic modelling calculations in the first half. However, when he tries to discredit the calculations he is obviously out of his field of expertise. For example, he starts with a comparison with the moon! The moon is (approximately) a simple rock with a rotation 28 times slower than earth's, with no surface water/atmosphere for thermal transfer or buffering. The night side is exposed to almost absolute zero for 14 days, and the day side gets the sun's full radiation from the moment the sun "rises", because there is no atmosphere to reflect any of it. Honestly, I'm a little surprised he mentioned the moon first in his article, I thought it would have been a footnote.
                Then unfortunately the comments on heat flow between atmosphere and surface misses the whole idea. The surface is not being heated by the atmosphere at all, but by the sun. The surface cools at a certain rate, and the rate is effected by the properties of the atmosphere.
                Unfortunately, the whole premise of the article was to show that we cannot model the climate very well. That's not really a surprise. Long term models are a waste of time, which is why politicians love them. Of course, the fact we cannot model it does not mean the concept is incorrect. Anything complex, like the economy, cannot be modelled long term, which does not mean all ideas about the economy are incorrect.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  "The surface is not being heated by the atmosphere at all, but by the sun."
                  Correct.
                  The scare relies on the supposed back radiation by which the
                  surface is warmed by heat from this CO2 layer - there is no such effect.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I dont believe anything that the liberal left says. They have no credibility, and only say things to further their agendas at the time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    no need to read about it, since I believe you are understanding it correctly. also since global warming is not happening your education to further debunk it is unnecessary.
    do you think if we gane gore the 15 trillion he wants that he would we have enough to end what is not happening? or would he further put jet exhaust in the air proclaiming victory? he as should 0 take a page out of the bush book and just shut up and go away.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    Modern CO2 concentrations are in the 450ppm range. (I only know that because I design medical equipment that measures CO2.) These in the data run half of that. I happen to modern CO2 from working on medical products.

    This in itself does not tell me anything about about human-made global warming. It's not something someone outside the field (like me) is going to work out with one set of data. People study it for years just to understand the models. I am confident those models will change as scientists in this field make new discoveries.

    Based on what we know now, CO2 released from burning things caused the doubling, and that increase is going to have huge net costs to people. There really isn't a good solution to prevent those costs. I question if cutting emissions could have enough impact to be worthwhile. So people look for an easy way out: maybe we'll discover one simple shocking piece of evidence upending the current understanding and showing there are no costs to to carbon emissions. This is an insane leap of wishful thinking IMHO.

    At least with this, unlike things like homeopath not working and GMOs being, I do understand the motivation to deny reality when it comes comes to global warming.

    In any case, I am fascinated by remote places like Antarctica. I like the idea of going to space, but there are remote places on earth humans can't go to personally.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 11
      Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Like all Global Warming advocates you talk about costs but not offsetting benefits. The CO2 itself is linked to increasing plant life all over the planet by 14% this is a big deal. It improves crop yields.

      Warming causes longer growing seasons. Milder winters prevent deaths from cold. Warm is good. Historically, people do well when the climate warms. There is increased food, trade, population. Warm times are the "golden days". When it gets cold, think famine, pestilence, the black plague.

      So why does no one mention benefits? Perhaps its because they want to herd the sheep in a specific direction. Amazingly, the solution to "global warming" seems to be to give the people in charge trillions of dollars so that we can't afford energy. Seriously?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        The mild benefits are slightly warmer climate and better crop yields (disagree with yields, but lets say its true here). The serious problems are sea level rise from reduced continental ice. I would choose to live without the mild benefits when facing moving coastlines.
        We all disagree with the damaging socialized political "fixes". We have no power to argue against them if we first deny that the problem exists. By denying we simply motivate the politicians who want to take charge.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          I think that a 14% increase in green cover is more than a mild benefit. And is a couple inch sea rise a serious problem?

          My primary issue is that unless you are talking about both pro's and con's you are not doing rational analysis. There are pros. No one mentions them. And most discussions assume the most extreme warming projections.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            The maximum sea level rise is 215ft. That is only if ALL of todays continental ice melted, but that is not going to happen. But I would be interested to know what process you think will make the rise stop at a couple of inches.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) has for the second year shown record ice growth across the Greenland Ice Sheet, but NASA shows a 281 gigaton loss, oops that off by 200 gt. Also new coloration on NSIDC Greenland ice changes now use red and orange to indicate ice gains and blue indicates losses. Now you will see what fake news is.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwcW...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                I'm not interested in one ultra-short-term (single year) movement against the logical trend. I'm interested in the paleo trend. Do you have any thoughts on why the paleo correlation might not apply today?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition,we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleo-climatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate canwell be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                    Dobrien, the explanation for climate change is so simple (increased CO2 absorbing more IR radiated from Earth surface). You would think that if this was in fact incorrect, it could be so simple to refute. Simply stating it has been "critically scrutinized" does not reassure me. Any simple refutation would reassure me, but nobody has ever given one.
                    Instead, all we see is vaguely worded unspecific explanations of "alternative concepts", trying to make it sound more complex than it is.
                    The CO2 levels are simple to measure. The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 tonnage is currently about 1/3 of annual fossil fuel contribution. The other 2/3 is absorbed into one or all of the natural carbon cycles. If we continue at the same rate, we should expect the levels to continue to increase by about 1/3 of that rate. We should expect that higher level to have the unrefuted effect on average temperature and therefore sea levels.
                    It is so disappointing that so much effort is put into discrediting the cause and effect, by the very group of people who would be the best ones to work out a good free market solution to the problem. Instead we are left with the socialized solutions being forced on us by western governments.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                      With the sun in grand solar minimum we will be lucky if we can warm the planet in a couple of years. The temperature data and ice loss data
                      Is know to be falsified by NOAA and the IPCC.
                      The real power is the electromagnetic interaction with the sun and the planets. The weather on this planet has fluctuated widely
                      In the past and will do so in the future and there is little we can do about it. After a period of heavy sunspot activity and several years of rising temps coinciding the sunspots are starting to be scarce. You think we are warming and I think we are cooling, that's the bottom line.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                        Yes, of course when the sun cycle is in decline we are cooling, because the sun is our source of energy. Yes, of course the weather will fluctuate continuously and always will. These things are obvious to anyone, and they hardly need stating. With the same obvious logic when the sun cycle is increasing we are warming.
                        But for each equivalent position in the sun's cycle (equivalent energy input) the higher CO2 levels result in higher temp. Does anybody in the denier camp seriously think that the decline in temperature in the years before the sun's minimum "disproves" the concept of CO2 capturing heat? Thats like saying "the sky is getting darker these days" by monitoring only the evening light.
                        The falsified data is irrelevant. You can find that on both sides of the debate. False or exaggerated data does not disprove a concept it just destroys the reputation of its producer. Modern readings of temperature are not relevant anyway because we have no paleo satelite data to compare with. The paleo correlation of CO2 and sea level needs to be disproved to break the concept.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                          "The falsified data is irrelevant". Bullshit it cause a lack of faith in the narrative.
                          Denier is a typical leftist label meant to form an opinion with prejudice.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                            It causes lack of faith in those responsible. People who try to extrapolate that to the narrative, do so for another agenda. Think about it. If you have a strong belief in some idea, would you drop that idea just because one in a million "experts" in the field was found to be fraudulent? Of course not, you should rightly re-evaluate that person or organisation instead.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                              ”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
                              Stephen Schneider,
                              Stanford Professor of Climatology,
                              Lead author of many IPCC reports
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                                Astonishing! I have not seen that quote before. But I've always seen the IPCC as primarily political anyway, never scientific. Any part of the UN is bound to have a hidden collectivist agenda.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  2 months, 3 weeks ago
                              Except that many governments and "experts" picked up that falsehood and promoted it widely and viciously; even starting an industry where some got very wealthy and passing legislation to take control away from the individual for the "greater good". While I agree that each need be looked at independently, those organizations, particularly the scientific community, should have responsibly, dutifully, and frequently scrutinized all information before arriving at a conclusion (consensus opinion), Why didn't they? Easy, governments want power and scientists need funding. One hand washes the other.

                              Sorry, there are too many villains in this story to trust any of them for the truth. Why trust any of those who were/are so eager to believe anything that supported their notion?
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                          ”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
                          Timothy Wirth,
                          President of the UN Foundation

                          ”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
                          Christine Stewart,
                          former Canadian Minister of the Environment
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          "By denying we simply motivate the politicians who want to take charge."
          Yes! Because the denials become more and more absurd as the evidence becomes more overwhelming. We have Naomi Klein licking her lips in morbid excitement arguing global warming is actually a good thing because the answer is socialism. Instead of responding that socialism is not the answer to anything, people resort to absurd denials of reality, as if we must choose between fantasy and socialism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 3 weeks ago
            Slippery slope here CG ...

            So we should jump on-board anything the government says so as not to fuel its desire to expand its power? Disagreeing with its assessment, even if it is consensus "science", even if a chunk of the facts it built the hype over has been proven false/fraudulent (not empirical), even if anyone with science credibility who opposes their position is ridiculed publicly for speaking out, even if governments are paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to scientists and corporations who support the ambiguous/vaguely misleading "climate change" moniker?

            Reminder to everyone: Government lies. Those things government champions are usually rife with schemes to amass personal wealth and retain/expand power.

            Hell no. I can't see compliance for sake of compliance as a rational take, nor can I in any way see that stance as an objective stance.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Sorry, but I don't see that "compliance" with the liars as the only alternative to denying climate change.

              If there were a fully free market solution to the problem (something based on well functioning property rights), then it would result in little damage to the economy or to the individual IF IT TURNS OUT there is not really a climate problem. The fact we are only given the socialized solution by the evil liars does NOT logically mean we do NOT have an actual climate problem. When we get rid of that blind spot, maybe we will have a chance of finding that free market solution.

              There are two completely separate questions (a) will fossil fuels cause a damaging increase in sea level? (b) what is the best way to deal with that?
              If we just insist the answer to (a) is "No", despite any evidence, then our answer to (b) cannot be taken seriously. I prefer to say Yes to (a), then I am justified protesting the socialized solutions being forced on us.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        "like all Global Warming advocates"
        I'm not an advocate. I just accept reality as it is.

        "you talk about costs but not offsetting benefits"
        I said "net costs" specifically to acknowledge the benefits.

        "people do well when the climate warms"
        The claim that global warming actually has a net benefit is not correct.

        "because they want to herd the sheep in a specific direction."
        That's the sheep-herders' issue. Their wishes don't affect reality either.

        "the solution to "global warming" seems to be to give the people in charge trillions of dollars so that we can't afford energy. Seriously?"
        You are responding to someone else's claims. I said there is no "solution" to prevent those costs. I Preventing all costs to others is not even a reasonable goal. Rather, we have to make people whole when our activities damage their property.

        I am amazed at people's capacity to deny reality when the truth is unpleasant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          Is there some reality that is being denied other than that climate is nothing other than local averaging of weather patterns. Climate is a mathematical object residing in human brains and, depending upon the brain, causing much distressing emotion and thus large amounts of name calling, spending, and other horror in those who believe that math is reifiable.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            " causing much distressing emotion and thus large amounts of name calling, spending,"
            The emotional distress, name-calling, and gov't wasteful spending are all irrelevant to the issue of damaging other people's property.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Who is damaging other people's property other than those who are causing destruction by pretending that something must be done about global warming or some kind of climate change?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      There has not been a doubling of CO2.
      If it is 450 ppbv up from 280 ppmv then it has increased by about 60% and since its affects are logarithmic most of the temperature effects have already occurred in the less than one degree C in the last century plus. But the measurements of CO2 vary greatly with an average nearer 400 ppmv.
      There is nothing to deny about something as unimportant as global warming except possibly the self caused mental distress from the inability of dealing multi-decades in the future with human inability to make changes in their lives such as not building in flood planes or trying to farm in arid areas.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        "There is nothing to deny about something as unimportant as global warming"
        It's trillions of dollars of loss to the people affect over the next 100 years. To people who don't mind trashing other people's stuff, it's unimportant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          If you mean denying the need for spending of money to pretend to defeat global warming is proper, then I agree with you. Otherwise, there is nothing to deny about something that is unimportant and comes and goes in cycles with global cooling. I do not deny that weather changes and therefore weather patterns in geographical areas tend to change.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    Well, according to recent reports and liberal screaming, C02 is 400 something. But the article says it's unprecedented. I've read ice core reports that have shown 3000 ppb...don't remember the dates but they were further back than 400K years.

    I have a theory, just prior to the onset of colder climate the CO2 rises to combat the anticipated influx of cosmic radiation. Carbon is an electrical dispersent. This is due to less hardy plant life dying off and not using the carbon to produce Ox. When the ice age is full blown, the carbon gets locked up and then released gradually as the ice and snow thaws.
    I therefore predict that the carbon level will stay close to where it is until we have more sustained ice and snow on the ground for longer periods of time; hastening colder and colder temperatures.

    The confounding issues we face this Grand Solar Minimum is the rapid movements of the magnetic poles and a 25% and weakening magnetic shielding; making us more and more vulnerable to cosmic radiation, increased cloud cover and, which as many are now predicting, a much worse and elongated cold spell.
    In short...The future doesn't look all that bright on any front.
    https://soundcloud.com/adapt-2030/19-...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    The CDIAC paper as presented here by AJAshinoff, thanks AJ, is substantially only two paragraphs.
    The end of the second para says-

    * . . at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in
    phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature,
    whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations. *


    In my simpler words and with my interpretation in brackets:

    * When there was warming, either
    -CO2 increased along with temperature increases, (maybe the cause of both
    increases was the same)
    or
    was a thousand years behind temperature changes (temperature maybe was the
    cause of CO2 change, not CO2 change led to temperature change)

    When there was cooling CO2 lagged, (first cooling, then CO2 dropped,
    again maybe temperature increase was the driver of CO2 increase) *


    This is evidence that CO2 is not a global temperature driver but rather if anything it is the other way round.
    Any disagreement with my simple words, or with the CDIAC paper,
    need not tell me to get out and fight socialism.

    AJAshinoff says- " this deflates man made global warming entirely."
    Agreed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  nickursis 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    So, all the debate about CO2 physics aside, consider this. The models they paly with, and comparisons to "old times" are not worth spit. Several reasons:
    1. There are now something like 7 Billion humans on the planet, each one respirates Co2.
    2. There is unprecedented deforestation, especially in the main carbon sink of the world, the Amazon basin.
    3. In between glaciations, there is a rise in Co2 which would seem counter intuitive in respect to the fact plant growth should be a maximum, so it should eat all that up.
    4. There are a lot, lot of animals in the world today raised for food, all of whom respirate. This may, or may not equal the previous wild populations, but that is yet another variable.
    5. There is some evidence for solar activity in a cyclical form to also cause warming and to change the whole "energy budget" of the planet.
    6. There are oceanic changes to currents and life zones due to changes in climate that also have contributed to more or less absorption of C02.

    I have never seen any "complete" model that takes all these issues into account, and then add in the human output of Co2 in industrial applications. All I see is people making vaugue statements about climate change and want to blame humans above all else, and never produce a complete package of ALL factors and how they fit. It may very well be that our "little" contribution is meaningless in the whole cycle, or may be huge, but my bone is that no one wants to really explain the full picture, when it seems all they are doing is providing political justification for rules, regulations and money. Seems like there are a lot of questions unanswered.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    Like the spotted owl...groups like to point the finger at just one small item, CO2, as being the major indicator of global warming (I didn't say climate change, because most respondents are talking about warming).

    The fact, as I understand it, is that water vapor is the major contributor to this effect. Far more than the effect of CO2 levels, but nobody ever addresses that little issue.

    Finally...few people are denying that the climate is changing. They're just having a hard time with the poor evidence that mankind is the major reason for it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  kddr22 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    It is interesting to watch the debate on both sides that ultimately must be decided by hard science not opinion. IF we look at earth's history that is stored in the geology of out planet these fluctuations have been ongoing since out planet has existed, sun co2 plate tectonics methane cosmic rays gamma rays. The interactions and the complexity fun to watch but assuming proof is too early on either side,
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      There is no debate. A debate assumes an interchange of ideas, backed by facts, among people that are capable of understanding those facts and willing to alter their opinion based on new information. What we have is one side trying to present facts, with the other side incapable of understanding those facts and not willing to budge from their dogma. It is no different from a physics PhD "arguing" with a nine-year old who wants his broken toy magically restored.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  kddr22 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        Oh I agree that it is mainly one sided debate at present just the point that the complexity of the the factors shows it is not just one thing but a multitude of factors. I did not even list volcanic activity which through earth's history has had major impacts on cooling and heating of the earth etc
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Snezzy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    A lot of assumptions behind this "data".
    - Does the CO2 stay put? Or does it migrate? To where? How do we know?
    - What are the sources of error in the calculations? (I don't mean "faulty addition", but instead "overlooked factors" and "faulty proxies".) How do we know?
    - What are the protocols for handling the samples and how can we be certain they have not lost or gained CO2?
    - What levels of CO2 are necessary in the atmosphere for plant life at the ages measured? C3 plants? C4 plants? That'll be the concentration for plants to reproduce, not just to survive.
    -
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    The core shows that the "present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr", and the article references the "close correlation" between temperature and atmospheric CO2.

    We know how much CO2 we add from fossil fuels each year. We continually measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere, so we know that roughly 2/3 of the CO2 we add is absorbed by some process, and about 1/3 is retained each year in the atmosphere. In other words, there no reason to think that the CO2 would be increasing if not for human fossil fuel activity. I don't see any doubt.

    As far as how high it can go before seeing expensive problems (sea level), that is debatable.
    We pay politicians to have pointless debates, so we don't have to :)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 10
      Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

      In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

      This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

      The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

      The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

      Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

      In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        Not sure why you think oceans are responsible. We all know the land irradiates heat. Feel the pavement temerature in the afternoon, then at night. All land is heated by absorbing UV during the day, and cools by radiating IR 24hrs. (The ocean does as well, but less so because its surface temp does not increase during the day by much, as you said.)

        The important (continental) ice is not melted by warming oceans, but by warming climate. More snow evaporating to leave less to accumulate each year feeding the heads of glaciers. Ocean temps are very stable, as you said, they would change very little. In any case they would only directly effect Arctic (sea) ice, not continental (antarctic) ice, and we don't need to care as much about sea ice.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          Is it not obvious [to you] that man-made temperature changes (there are both heating and cooling effects) are so miniscule compared to the natural changes occurring daily that it is preposterous to propose to handicap all societies for practically unmeasurable effects (and we're not even sure if those effects are good or bad, heating or cooling)? In fact, the only measurable effect is the money transfer that this issue enables.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            No, I don't care about temperature or weather, in fact I get -30C in winter I would welcome some warmer weather. We can easily adapt to any weather anyway. The only problem (for me) is the expected sea level rise, which will probably be long after I'm gone.
            As far as the evil socializing money transfer issue, I think you will find everyone in this forum in agreement with you. These are two different discussions. My concern is that the very people who could work out a constructive undamaging (free market) solution are simply denying there is even potentially a problem.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              There are many potential problems. But to arrest human progress, and even devolve, based on proven intentional lies is beyond words. How can one have a discussion with people that intentionally lie?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                The arresting of progress is happening because of socialist policies, NOT because of climate change. Maybe CC will arrest progress in 100 or 200 years. Nobody knows. But instead of fighting against the progress of socialism, the people who matter are just fighting the idea that CC could become a problem!
                The "liars" have been very successful in diverting their opponents (including most of us).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  There is no climate problem.
                  The big problem is from the mush heads, the moral posturing sanctimonious
                  twerps who claim to want to save the earth with other people's money.
                  Climate change and associated green claptrap are tools of the political
                  class and socialists who find these emotional scares useful to expand the power
                  of the state.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                    So it looks like we agree then, on the problems with the socialist policies. Your choice though, is to argue there is "no problem" instead of directly fighting the socialism.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                      Environmentalism as religion comes not from reds, communism or socialism but
                      from blackshirt nazis and their forerunners:
                      http://ecofascism.com/review11.html
                      Rand observed that Objectivism opposes both sides.
                      Red, international, and black, national, politics unite in shutting down free
                      speech as well as individual liberty and property rights. Climate change
                      alarmism gives them a tool, an excuse. No basis in fact is an advantage for reds
                      and blacks as fabrication and emotion have freer reign. Quotations from the
                      political class given in this thread show how climate alarmism is being used.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                        All I know is they have successfully diverted most real free market supporters into fighting "environmentalism" or "alarmism", sometimes even "science", INSTEAD OF fighting the real evil which is collectivism.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by stephenwv 2 months ago
          Salta, It's called heat exchange. Heat moves from warmer to cooler. The heat from the atmosphere is responsible for the warming of the ocean surface temperatures. However, as Dobrien points out, it takes massive amounts of heat from the atmosphere to cause that warming. Many peer reviewed studies have documented that warming.

          The deeper oceans then are constantly receiving that heat as it travels from the warmer ocean surface down to the cooler deep. This continuous massive transfer of heat may be why the predictions of rapidly rising average earth temperature have failed. Nice bit of info, Dobrien.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by salta 2 months ago
            The ocean is not heated by the atmosphere at all. Where does that crazy idea come from? The ocean is heated directly by the Sun, and also slightly from the gradually cooling Earth.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months ago
              Hi Salta it comes from this kind of nonsense.

              Yale Environmental studies:
              How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?
              The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.
              BY CHERYL KATZ • MARCH 30, 2015
              For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence.
              But as those gases build in the air, an energy overload is rising below the waves. A raft of recent research finds that the ocean has been heating faster and deeper than scientists had previously thought. And there are new signs that the oceans might be starting to release some of that pent-up thermal energy, which could contribute to significant global temperature increases in the coming years.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by salta 2 months ago
                Yes, that is nonsense.
                Heat from the Earth (internal and absorbed from the sun) flows into (and through) the atmosphere and out into space. Massive amounts of energy are removed from the oceans every second by evaporation, and released by condensation in the atmosphere. Cheryl Katz seems to have a weak grasp of physics. Its not a good idea to read that nonsense and conclude the idea of fossil CO2 changing climate is incorrect. Anyway, she concludes with a prediction which makes little sense, so for me this goes into the predictive model (ie. valueless) category, and is probably more political than realistic.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Salta says-

      "the close correlation" between temperature and atmospheric CO2."
      The correlation is weak. It does suggest that temperature lags CO2 concentration
      in the atmosphere. "at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase
      either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the
      Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the
      onset of the glaciations." Evidence from several other studies show a lag of
      about 800 years.

      "In other words, there no reason to think that the CO2 would be increasing if
      not for human fossil fuel activity. I don't see any doubt."
      No reason! But human activity contributes only about 3% of the increase,
      the rest is from natural sources primarity from the oceans, see Henry's Law.

      Movements in sea levels have been observed, the rate of increase over the past
      half century is about 1.6mm pa, but this figure varies on where and how
      measurements are taken. Geological, plate tectonics, movements are the best
      explanation. Climate 'scientists' regard geology as the enemy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        The annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been between 30% and 40% of the total CO2 which fossil fuels generate. The rest is absorbed in some natural systems. In other words we "contribute" about 3 TIMES the nett atmosphere increase.
        If somebody told you humans only contribute 3% of that increase, then you awere clearly being misled. Check the numbers yourself, then never trust that source again. Don't just believe propaganda, Lucky.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          Source- top of the list when I did a search was:
          http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/...
          (Mainstream climate alarmism). The figure comes from the last page,
          note the amusing use of the word 'balance'.
          (units are 10^9 tonne of CO2)
          fossil fuel burning 23,
          Other sources 776.
          23 / (776+23) = 2.9%

          The big fallacy is the word balance, that all flows are constant except that human caused. Actually the higher the inflow the higher the uptake by growing vegetation as well as calcification -the natural conversion of CO2 to calcite (limestone).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by salta 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            Just took a quick look and the link is an anonymous document, so unlikely to be valid. Choose something attributed to an actual author, ideally with at some credentials.
            When you find that, ignore all natural flows of carbon (other sources), because they are not influence by humans, they are only put in docs like that to confuse you. The only data you need is the CO2 tonnage added to the atmosphere per year (peak to peak on the Hawaii chart) and the CO2 output from fossil fuels per year. You will find, I repeat again, the accumulation is about 30% - 40% of fossil output. In other words we are lucky it is being absorbed somewhere (for now) otherwise it would be increasing at almost 3 times the rate. That makes you earlier "3% contribution" out by a factor of about 100.
            Think things through instead of just beieving headlines. Don't just believe me either, find the actual data for more than one source and check it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by stephenwv 2 months ago
              Boy are my plants LOVING the added CO2!!! They are amazing this year!!!

              No intelligent person denies climate change. Yet so called scientists ignore and deny the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event... the 100,000 year glacial cycle. How can they call themselves scientists when they ignore over 1 million years of science?

              I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.

              Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event in their computer models. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.

              There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

              Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government's NOAA web site. (Link below).

              About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.

              So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN IPCC FINALLY agrees by their statement recently: that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees... The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.

              Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)... it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
              https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-clim...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by salta 2 months ago
                Ignore predictions. ALL predictions are a waste of time and usually a political tool, to make people demand govmt "does something about it". Look at the past records only. (BTW you pasted this lengthy post again on this thread, please don't do that)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Storo 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I think the key statement in the piece is that today's CO2 levels are "unprecedented" in the last 420,000 years. Am I misreading this? It would seem to say that CO2 is higher today than in the last 420,000 years. If true, it would appear to add credence to the Global Warming arguement. This is also significant that the "cycles" that they refer to have similar increases and decreases in CO2, and yet we are apparently higher today than what was found with regard to these cycles.
    Am I wrong? Have I misread? Comments welcome.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      the real question is how much money will the government of the usa take from us to "fight" this problem which does not exist? aside from the government screwing up the economy which affects us how is this climate garbage affecting us in a negative way?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by stephenwv 2 months ago
    I do not see that. Over the past 400,000 years CO2 levels never reached 400ppm. According to the Dome Fugi ice core analysis and confirmed by the Vladivostok ice core analysis which can be seen illustrated in the chart on the US Government NOAA web site.

    No intelligent person denies climate change. Yet so called scientists ignore and deny the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event... the 100,000 year glacial cycle. How can they call themselves scientists when they ignore over 1 million years of science?

    I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.

    Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event in their computer models. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.

    There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

    Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government's NOAA web site. (Link below).

    About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.

    So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN IPCC FINALLY agrees by their statement recently: that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees... The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.

    Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)... it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-clim...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo