Global Cooling Is Here!

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    probably, but it's hardly relevant if we're looking at less than a degree for doubling CO2.

    That the cold warm cycles during the last glacial transition were actually opposite the scholar ideas, the Older Dryas being relatively warm and arid, the Bolling Allerod being cold with numerous glacier advances and the Younger Dryas being arid and warmer again, followed by a very wet Preboreal.

    Think more of the 100,000 Ky cycle.But I think it's a waste of time to even begin to explain which players are active, like gyroscopic precession, lunar gravity on the equatorial bulges, various solid inner core size due to cooling, outer fluid mantle turbulence due to slight misalignments of mantle and core spin axes, etc.

    Anyway, it's happening today too. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/equator_bulge_020801.html
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    That's two rather sweeping statements.
    The first steps around the fact that CO2 levels can be altered by organisms, like us.

    The second ignores what a greenhouse gas is, and why, in the past it's been the gas responsible for large-scale climate change, thanks to tectonic activity, and the time it takes the oceans to absorb it, and the planet and the oceans to cool (radiate energy into space).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Try checking out current rate of increase in ocean temperatur in ocean te,perature. Then go talk to the scientists in Antartican and ask about the latest ice shelf, five times the size of Manhattan Island, about to break away.

    Wherever you believe the cause lies. should we not at least be making contingency plans for trhe future ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553

    Try googling .. global warming sceptic bingo ....and let us now whe what it says there is wrong
     
  8. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    Sure why not:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

    But even if it had, Suppose that the hypothetical delta radiation was to be 1 w/m2 more than say fifty years ago. The specific heat of water is 4,2 j/g. So it would take 4.2 seconds to heat one gram 1 degree, but there are a million grams in one M3 water, and 4,200,000 seconds is about 50 days to heat the first meter deep one degree or 13 years for the first hundred meters.

    But the earlier warming of the oceans was likely much less spectacular:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL027834.shtml

    But even if the oceans had warmed that much, why would we think that it is radiation? IR radiation cannot penetrate water more than 15 micron and cannot heat it. Despite the RC fairy tail about blocking the radiation from beneath, the main thing that IR does is agitating the molecules into evaporation. For ocean warming you need visible light, which was plenty available with a reduced cloud cover in the 1980-1990's ( Palle et al 2006 )

    Why so dramatic? Happens all the time for millions of years, go and ask the paleo oceanographers how many traces they find back of melting ice shelfs, releasing their debris or IRD (Ice Rafted Detritus) on the ocean floors.

    Sure as long as you don't find yourself bankrupt because of that and then the ice age starts again. Go for no regret

     
  9. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    Not really, doubling CO2 ultimately give a dry increase of temperature less than a degree celsius. To boost that the whopping IPCC 2-6 degrees or whatever, they invented positive feedback.

    It can be measured empirically that the sum of all feedbacks is not positive, no positive feedback, hence that that degree celsius is also the necesary maximum.

    it's the other way around. The oceans became agitated and released CO2 with a delay of about 600 years. The oceans regulated the climate changes and the CO2 was just a by-product, which did nothing what so-ever. Proof here.
     
  10. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    What you are doing is witch hunting, typical herd behavior, expelling the unwanted. Also known as groupthink. But for some neat groupthinking you need an enemy. If there isn't one around, you just create one.
     
  11. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Now that you have put a convenient name to my activity, would you take one more step and say what you find wrong with the satements on the site.

    Name-calling is scarcely an adequate response.
     
  12. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    it's not name calling it's an analysis according to the forensic way, see if patterns can be recognized. Let's say that the match to previously known social behavior mechanisms is remarkably close.
     
  13. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    What is it that you disagree with on the site ? Can you please be more specific.

    You denied increases in ocean surface temperatures; visit PNAS and look at images there, together with an explanation of how the data were collected. You will also find convincing evidence in a paper published in 2006, if you follow the trail. Again, if you disagree, you are having a quarrel with the big guns of science, which doesn't make you wrong but does suggest that you are being selective in your references.

    Please look and let me have your rebuttal if you feel you have one.

    So am I wrong to regard witch hunting as a form of name-calling ? It describes forensic analysis. Well, we live and learn
     
  14. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    The oceans became agitated? Why did they do this?

    The oceans still do regulate climate change. But the planet isn't an ocean, it's an atmosphere too. Oh yeah, there's some land on it as well. The oceans are a part of the big story, an important part, but still a part of a bigger story, which includes various other chapters.

    According to your theory, there's no positive feedback. How about negative feedback? Or is there no feedback? What does your theory say about the CO2 content of the planet, its oceans and atmosphere? Does it mention the lithosphere or the asthenosphere? Does it have a carbon cycle?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2008
  15. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    That's the billion dollar question. But the evidence is everywhere in the records, suggesting that during the glacial, the ocean was horizontally stratisfied, this is based on isotope ratios with depth, during the glacial transition this stratification disappeared, the oceans mixed vertically. Now, since the deep oceans below about 2 km depth are about the same temperature, regards tropics or arctic, it's hard to see how temperature differences in the atmosphere could have brought about these changes.

    True, but the current La Niña is doing a pretty convincing job, explaining that she has an important say in the weather. Now picture a La Niña for several thousand years.

    I have demonstrated in the other thread that negative feedback is present, which would tend to neutralize inputs away from the average. This would also decrease the temperature change from doubling CO2.

    I consider this a irrelevant loaded question fallacy. It's not a theory, just a hypothesis, which should explain more than current theories, for instance the high volcanic and tectonic activity during parts of the last glacial transition, which would fit perfectly in a certain pet idea but which is completely unrelated with a climate explanation.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2008
  16. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    So a carbon cycle is irrelevant to your climate theory, then?
    This hypothesis, what is it again?
    What are you referring to with: "high volcanic and tectonic activity during parts of the last glacial transition"? What is the last "glacial transition", in your theory?
     
  17. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    it will not be just global cooling or global warming...the temperature range will be chaotic from now on
     
  18. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Why do temps go up first? Are you sure the record is unambiguous about CO2 always following any temp. rise?
    Are you sure you understand the dynamics of ice sheets? Where is the evidence that the ice-cores show something "stopping half way"? What's that about? You made this up, right? It's meaningless, there's nothing "stopping half way".
    What's this "strong affiliation with extreme values"?
    This all appears to be based on a few assumptions.

    Can you list what those asumptions are, and why you've made them?
    Can you explain the formula you used to get your result, that calculates the positive feedback is non-existent?

    Also, if we're all supposed to be sceptical of climate science and the models, why should your simple calculation be trusted instead?

    Why do you say it's complicated, and the scientists have a big problem, but then assure us it can be demonstrated (that there's no problem), easily enough, as you claim to have done?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2008
  19. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    So you have no clue, apparantly you have neither read the thread nor looked at the graph of which my text should be the caption:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Any doubt about the lagging CO2? The RC bunch doesn't. The data are here. You can simply reproduce the graph yourself. CO2 data and isotope data.

    But you can of course check all other data sets out there to check what is leading and what is lagging. But these have the highest resolution and make sure that the difference is well outside the 2sigma error range. And yes the isotope reversal around 14,300 is on an geologic time scale a extreme rapid event.

    Did you really try this thread and did you download the simple model to investigate it? Please substantiate your problems

    more (much) later.
     
  20. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I've looked at it, but I still have no real idea what you're on about.

    Since you seem to have no intention of describing how you got your result. or how you put your "formula" together, I therefore conclude that nothing in any of your posts says anything relevant.

    You're just babbling away about something you don't really understand, right?
    There's nothing in any of those links that looks like you're doing anything more than jumping to invalid conclusions, from basic misunderstandings of what's really involved in climate dynamics.

    You shouldn't tell everyone that you've got some kind of insight into the climate's behaviour, when clearly you have no such thing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2008
  21. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    till'm cuzz!
     
  22. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Be fair ! By his own token he is only witch hunting.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    No evidence of that - not even your negative feedback assumptions, extrapolating without mechanism at all time scales, from dubious analysis of data covering a climate regime that lacks the current CO2 boost - prevent the extra water vapor from possibly (likely) at least doubling the direct CO2 effect, which is likely more than a degree anyway.

    Or are you still holding to your earlier position that CO2 does not trap heat in the lower atmosphere at all - merely delays its journey to space by a negligible time ?
     

Share This Page